If marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman but marriage between 1 man and multiple women was tolerated why can't it be tolerated now? Is it still okay? If not why was it okay back then?

I'm reading some info about marriage in the Bible and Abraham married his half sister Sarai and how he was allowed to have a concubine, Hagar.

It's not so much a question of it being "okay". According to the Bible, God tolerated a lot of disobedience from Israel (remember how Jesus wept over Jerusalem)...also see the reference to the toleration of divorce despite it's not being "okay".

From a completely civil standpoint, there isn't any logical reason that it shouldn't be permitted. I know the resident legal residents of Otterville have cited the hardship caused by the need for all sorts of domestic relationship laws concerning spousal rights, parental rights, inheritance laws, etc. to be rewritten...but that seems to be a pretty weak argument for denying human rights to anyone (sorry...we know it's not fair to you and your civil rights are being denied, but it's just too hard to revise existing laws).

Re: Sarai & Hagar...Hagar was her handmaiden and was offered to Abraham to act as a surrogate mother for the (then-) barren Sarai. There's no account of there ever being a continuing sexual relationship between Abraham & Hagar. Hagar may have submitted unwillingly in obedience to her mistress or may have submitted willingly as her duty. The biblical account does say that, after giving birth to Ishmael, Hagar acted as though she felt superior to Sarai and was banished as a result. It appears that Sarai had more influence over Hagar's life than did Abraham. Anyway, there's no way that this relationship could be construed to be that of a concubine or second wife.

Now, others such as David & Solomon DID engage in polygamy. Of course, they engaged in a lot of other things that displeased God, too (adultery, murder, idolatry, etc.).

I love the fact that your tagline (or whatever it's called) is a version of a verse from Proverbs.

Occam's Razor sez: The Bible is just a collection of bronze age woo-woo that doesn't make any logical sense.

One thing I agree with that Maher says is that the Republicans are so far "right" (I hate the left/right simplifications for the spectrum of political thought) that the Democrats are more of a centrist party, trying to appeal to a broader range of people. Part of that involves being the guys who are religious but not "extreme" about it like Teavangelicals and other Republican figures.

Because there are only 2 parties.
And because we have freedom of religion and the Constitution established a secular nation where people of all faiths or no faith are protected to practice their religion or no religion without governmental interference.

I'm more concerned about the majority of voters who don't believe in separation of church and state than a political party who supports them.

Yeah, to me I see it as close to what conservative ideals have been but aren't currently practiced. My philosophy is basic for is "small govt, low taxes, individual liberty first, people should be able to do what they want if it's not hurting someone else(no more drug war, who cares if gays want to marry, etc.), govt shouldn't impose things on me for 'the greater good' if it infringes on my rights'." Folks say there hasn't been a truly libertarian society, at least not for very long(see original USA I guess), so who knows if it would work. Maybe it wouldn't work in practice, how would I know? I'm not an economist or expert in other applicable fields. I know I'd like to give it a try, it's not like anything else works very well.

I'm by no means a political expert and don't pay as much attention as many..I should have prefaced with that.. but I am a fan of the constitution and much of what the founding fathers had to say. And I see it all as pretty much libertarian ideals. So when I see what conservatives and liberals are doing, I don't see it as very "American." That is if we want America to be what it was created to be, philosophically. If we don't want it to be that, let's say so and not have the politicians pretend otherwise and carry on with their current business.

I was rewatching Season 7 of the West Wing and they had a good quote about Government and Religion. "The Constitution does call for seperation of Church and State in Government but doesn't say anything about keeping religion out of politics."

The difference between basing your policies on the ideas of Thomas Jefferson versus basing them on the the ideas of Santa Claus.

I absolutely LOVE that conservatives are continuing this ridiculous birth control debate as if it is 1958.

Is it some desperate move to grab Catholics at the 11th hour?

In regards to the issue with religious colleges and health insurance the issue of religious freedom comes into it. I don't believe that restricting and denying OTHERS certain medical coverage based on YOUR own beliefs is valid or right. But since religion is so prevalent I think it's a discussion worth having.

The argument on the surface might sound old but an even older one is free speech and freedom of religion yet people want to make it a hate crime to criticize or parody religion.

I was going to reply to that guy, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, religion does not equal Christianity. This is my biggest gripe. These lawmakers are making laws that affect all Americans based on THEIR god and THEIR fables. I realize it is the majority religion, but it doesn't represent all Americans, and that is the reason religion should be kept out of politics.

Politicians can draw their beliefs, morals, etc from whatever source they like, but when you're name-dropping God in all your speeches it does come off as pandering (while alienating the millions of Americans who worship other deities or none at all).

That's the justification. People cite freedom of religion as an excuse to force their beliefs on others or deny others certain rights. But when you bring up the implications of what that would mean if we applied that to all religious faiths then they come back with, "well Christianity is the majority so the majority rules."

It can't be the Catholics. Yeah, the "official" Catholic Church view is against contraceptives, but the majority of Catholics in the U.S. ignore that and use contraceptives anyway.

So Cafeteria Catholics.

It's not an issue of whether or not contraception can be used. It's about whether the government can force Catholic schools and hospitals to pay for it in their health plans. Lots of catholics who have used, or are in favor of contraception, are totally against this. It's actually a pretty big issue among a majority of Catholics.

Wow...so your parents taught you that it's okay to rape your black slaves? And then write about "all men being created equal".

Of course, he only said "men", so your parents must have taught you to support a war on women.

I'm sure your Jeffersonian ideals will appeal to those considering themselves "progressive".

By your logic, NOT "name-dropping God" would alienate the many more millions who do worship God. So one is okay but not the other? And how does that "alienate" the constituencies you reference? What's stopping "those who worship other deities or none at all" from running for public office and then never mentioning God (or saying "Isis bless you" or "the cosmos bless you" or "may secular humanism free your mind" or whatever they want to sign off with)? Would that not be pandering to a different crowd? Anyway, those citizens are free to run for office and say whatever they want.

It amazes me that people don't seem to recognize that laws are based upon ideas of morality...whether you think those ideas are enshrined in a static or a "living" Constitution. If I say that stealing is wrong because...well, you know, it's JUST WRONG...and you say it's wrong because God says so...what makes my idea valid and yours wrong simply because the SOURCE is different (even though we reach the same conclusion).

Evidently (according to other posters) it's INTELLIGENT to worship Thomas Jefferson (if we base our moral standards upon "his policies", as stated by that poster) but DELUSIONAL to worship God & His moral standards...even when the standards are the same in both instances.

Seems to be hypocritical...basing your acceptance of ideas not upon the idea itself but rather upon the source. That would indicate that the objection is to the concept of God.

Sort of like, "I like that politician's ideas more than his opponents, but I'd never vote for him/her because he/she is a _________".

Meanwhile...back at the show....

Latest installment...which included 4-5 racist remarks by Maher slamming Asians, whites, and blacks (quite a trifecta)...started out with John Legend lying. He said a Republican had "admitted" that the voter ID laws were created specifically to help Romney win. As I recall, the guy had said that the voting ID laws would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania. Legend's 'interpretation' was the the law was created to suppress votes of legitimate voters; someone supporting the laws might point out the guy was saying that eliminating voter fraud would allow Romney to win. Regardless of the interpretation, Legend intentionally paraphrased the statement to say what he wanted the guy to say rather than what was actually said.

Then Maher tried to pin Legend down as to what side he took during the Chicago teachers' strike. Legend said that he supported the teachers but also supported the right of administrators to have control over the hiring & firing of their personnel and that this process is necessary to have the best possible schools. He actually made this point several times.

Yet Maher never once called him out for taking the same stand as Romney: Regarding schools, Legend "likes to be able to fire people". Romney never said that he LIKED firing people...he said that he liked having the ABILITY to fire people not doing their jobs. That is exactly what Legend was saying...which got a rousing round of applause from the audience.

Of course, the usual suspects were rounded up. Maher interrupted the guy from The Hill several times (to "fact check") and then simply did the old "Is not!" line of informed argumentation...and the audience applauded on cue (except when a conservative made a point which should have been universally embraced)...and, as usual, appeared confused as to whether they should applaud or not on at least one occasion (the cuemaster must have fallen asleep).

The funniest moments were when Maher said "Not to pile on Republicans or anything..." and the audience failed to recognize the sarcasm and the point when Maher futilely searched for the Romney quote in his notes, then paraphrased Romney to make a point, and THEN came back to read the quote AFTER the discussion had moved on. It was as though Maher just HAD to prove that he actually had the quote even though the topic had changed. It only seemed to matter to Maher that he made sure to establish that Romney had engaged in double-speak...surely the ONLY politician to ever do so...and couldn't let it go even after the moment had passed...not because it added anything new to what had already been said, but merely to erase Maher's insecurity about not being more organized (some poor staffer may have learned that Maher likes to be able to fire people).

What was learned from this episode? Bush was an idiot & an awful POTUS, Obama is cool, Republicans are very bad, Teabaggers are worse, and Democrats are the saviors of the free world. New Rules, indeed.

Oh, and even a discussion of Jerry Sandusky should be taken as an opportunity to bash Romney.

Once again you completely miss the point. I'm saying that no god, or anything to do with any religion or non-religion should have anything to do with our politics in this country. Isn't that what "Team America" wants to go in and do to any nation built upon the beliefs of a "radical" religion? NEWS FLASH: WE are the religious radicals to the rest of the non-Christian world. Why is it good for them, but not for us? Because OUR religion is the right one? Please.

I don't care if your morals come from God, your mom, or some con-man named, oh I don't know, let's just call him Joe Smith... LEAVE ANY RELIGION OUT OF IT. Stand on your morals alone. No one can be alienated because it's never introduced into the conversation.

Oh, and the difference between Thomas Jefferson and God? One was a real human being who helped create our nation (albeit being a product of his time), and the other is a fictional character made up by ancient people to scare other ancient people into following a code.

Seriously, at this point just back away from your computer and go for a walk in the park. I honestly worry for your health.

We get it, you're part of the religious right and can't stand anything Bill Maher and his liberal cronies think, say, or do.

It's exhausting just reading your long-winded replies that probably take way more energy and time than they're worth, seeing as no one is going to change anyone's mind here. In the end it just comes off looking like you're trolling.

Why you even waste precious moments of your life watching this show and then arguing about it endlessly on an Internet forum is beyond me. I wouldn't be caught dead spending this much time in a Rush Limbaugh thread.

(and yes, I do see the hypocrisy in my last few sentences, haha)

The problem arises when the person who believes stealing is wrong based on what their religious book says, wants to teach creationism in public schools, also because of what their religious book says.

Or for a more extreme example, someone who believes that stealing is wrong based on their religious beliefs, and later, attacks an American embassy based on their religious beliefs.



I agree that we shouldn't worship or deify people. Pick what makes sense. You don't have to choose only one source to derive moral principles from.

I enjoy creekdipper's participation in the thread. In fact, I'd say it elevates it to useful. What fun is a thread with no intelligently presented counterpoint? In a strange way, creekdipper's participation makes me enjoy Bill's show more, because I can get into what Bill says knowing he'll provide a counterpoint. When the thread is all one-sided, I kind of withdraw from the show because I can't place much faith in anything Bill says without a counterpoint.

Anyone who wants to be taken seriously should stop saying (as Bill did) that not everyone has a driver's license. You need a government issued Photo ID, of which a driver's license is only one form. And I still haven't heard anyone other than a poster here explain to me how it affects poor/elderly minorities more than poor/elderly whites. I can see if some minority areas have a higher barrier to obtaining a Photo ID than white areas. I haven't seen any examples of that yet, but at least that objection makes sense to me.

I wouldn't have been able to speak easily on the teacher's issues even though I worked at the Board of Ed of one of the largest cities in America many moons ago. Sucky teachers suck. But I doubt I could fix America's school systems in a sound bite. I could possibly give it a go in 10 pages, but then the union would shoot me down even if I tried to be fair. Because what's "fair" pay? What's "fair" protection for teachers who aren't meeting expectations? Can 2 people even agree on what "fair" means?

You can't even get a conservative to admit just under 250,000k/yr is not the middle class or upper middle class, so that would be a BIG no. Which, to me, why having these kinds of political debates in this thread makes me less likely to participate.

Picking apart the crowd reactions, counting how many times Maher interrupts someone, how many times he curses, all that other political noise doesn't add anything to the show or the discourse. It's simply annoying and it's the opposite of having a good back and forth with someone with different political views. It's like talking with someone who will tell you the sky isn't blue just to piss you off. And if you're paying that much attention to every last detail of the show, you probably need something better to do with your time. I'm a liberal and I sure as hell don't hang on every word that Bill Maher utters. So why would a conservative?

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Certain posters seem to get pretty bent out of shape about the show and feel the need to come in here and nitpick the show for the dumbest reasons and it doesn't seem like anyone but themselves care.

I don't think most people think Maher's show is completely perfect, but I myself feel that he is pretty interesting/entertaining to watch and has a lot of views (not all of course) that fall in line with my own. I think the biggest thing that attracts me to Maher's show as opposed to many other political shows is that the conversations remain pretty civil and respectful between the panelists for the most part.

I can understand the "nitpicking" complaints...except that they are in response to a fan of the show who insisted that such uncivil transgressions don't occur. I was just citing the examples to demonstrate that I have actually watched the show & paid attention (contrary to his opinion that I probably never see the show).

I pay for HBO, which sort of gives me some skin in the game. I'd like to see a show that had a moderator who didn't come from one political viewpoint & didn't stack the odds in favor of that viewpoint.

Saying that one 'wouldn't waste this much time in a Rush Limbaugh thread' completely misses the point. I wouldn't spend much time there, either...for the same reasons that I don't normally listen to Limbaugh/Hannity, etc. Too slanted & just reinforces preconceived notions...and I don't enjoy hearing them (or O'Reilly) interrupt people, either.

If this thread is ABOUT the show itself (and not just to second the views expressed there), I figure it's worth pointing out the flaws. For example, no one mentioned the fact that Maher told John Legend at the top of the show that the Chicago teacher's strike is over. Funny thing...I just read before coming back here that "the strike has taken an ugly turn", no school for Monday & Tuesday, Emmanuel is going to take the union to court, etc. Maybe pointing this out seems like "nitpicking for the dumbest reasons"...but only if you think that asking for correct information is "dumb".

I would think the fact that Maher is citing incorrect "facts" (shortly before interrupting a guest by yelling, "Fact-check!") would be important to viewers of the show. It either demonstrates complete hypocrisy on his part or incompetence on his part (or his staff's). No, I don't like Maher for a variety of reasons...yet I would regularly watch his show if he had any sort of balance presented (and, remember, my subscription helps to fund his show). There are hosts I like personally (but don't watch their shows) and vice-verse.

And it's nice to hear expressions of concern for "my health", thanks so very much. It's unnecessary, though, because this forum allows disgruntled viewers to spout off (just as the critical posters above did) rather than getting wrought up and going off and pounding bongo drums in a protest.