Just heard Bill Maher for 5 minutes on John King (CNN). They were talking about religion in politics. Maher mentioned Mitt Romney, "who is a Mormon" and Joe Lieberman, "who is an Orthodox Jew". He said in a crisis we may end up with a choice between "a guy who's wearing magic underwear and a guy who won't turn on a light on Friday night". In the event of attack, Maher said, would Joe get a proxy to push the button (my paraphrase). He initially called g's "special undergarments" but followed it up by saying "I call them magic underwear").**

I think it was Tal Bachman and/or Steve Benson who talked to Maher about the underbelly of Mormonism and clued him in to some of the (previously) lesser known Mormon quirks. Ever since, Maher cannot seem to shut up about the underwear!

It's interesting and funny to me that Maher can't seem to get over the garment thing, and too bad for Mormonism, he gets out and about in Prime Time all over the place, repeatedly making jokes and comments about how all religion is ridiculous but that Mormonism heads the pack.

I like him, he makes me laugh, but I can see how he can be offensive to some religious people. He will undoubtedly inform many, though, and perhaps influence how they view candidates when the time comes that it matters. I like how he has talked to exmos we know and they have obviously given him a lot of material. It still makes Maher himself laugh, long after he first heard about some of these things.


**Newsflash to Maher: Somebody else coined the term 'magic underwear' - you're only picking up on it, not originating it, like it sounds from how you phrased that. Granted it's a great one for a comedian!

Friends, please tread lightly through the land mines of this close-to-too-political topic. My intent is to focus on Maher being on CNN giving a rough time to a highly visible political candidate for his religious beliefs that just so happen to be Mormon. :)

And why not. Some questions just need to be asked.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2010 08:59PM by Nightingale.

I watched it too-I've heard Maher mention numerous times about mormons.I thought it was prett funny,and John King seemed to like it. I think Maher is over the top when he bashes anyone that believes in God. So I don't know how many people take him serious. He does seem to know about politics.(which I am obsessed with. Actually it has taken second since I discovered this board and others)

...life (which is often defined in extremely broad terms) INSTANTLY trumps all religious laws of the "not making fire" (i.e., turning on an electric light) on shabbat and the other relevant Jewish holidays kind.

So virtually anything that would be against halachah (observant Jewish law) VANISHES when "life" is at stake.

An actual or suspected terrorist attack certainly qualifies under the "saving life" exception, so if an observant Jew ever made it to the Oval Office (or anywhere in government, or in medical service, or the police department, fire department, a teacher or students in a classroom, a bus driver, a cab driver, etc., etc.), all Jewish laws of observance would be instantaneously superceded by the necessity of preserving life and lives.

This actually happened, and does happen, in Israel, and on a fairly regular basis, but it also applies to anywhere there are observant Jews.

Which is not to say anything about any individual who professes to be an observant Jew--like Lieberman (who is deeply loathed by a huge percentage of Jews, regardless of their level of observance or whatever kind of Judaism they subscribe to, on the basis that Lieberman is an S.O.B. and a "shanda"--a shame and an embarrassment to Judaism and to the Jewish people).

But just on the basis that he PROFESSES to be an observant Jew (which is questionable; many Jews think it's artful p.r. window dressing without actual meaning), he could do absolutely ANYTHING HE CONSIDERED NECESSARY AT ANY MOMENT OF ANY DAY OR NIGHT should lives--either actually or potentially, here or abroad, and anywhere in the universe--be considered BY HIM to be at stake. (Which, for the President of the United States certainly, is true 24/7 literally every moment of the time between the time s/he became president and the time that president's successor took office.)

That this exception also very much applies to individual people, of any station in life or chronological age, going about their ordinary daily lives.

If any observant Jew feels that "life" (again, defined VERY broadly) is actually or potentially at stake, they are REQUIRED by Jewish law to instantly suspend their observance (like shabbat restrictions) and do WHATEVER is necessary to preserve life and aid whoever is in need.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But just on the basis that he PROFESSES to be an
> observant Jew (which is questionable; many Jews
> think it's artful p.r. window dressing without
> actual meaning), he could do absolutely ANYTHING
> HE CONSIDERED NECESSARY AT ANY MOMENT OF ANY DAY
> OR NIGHT should lives--either actually or
> potentially, here or abroad, and anywhere in the
> universe--be considered BY HIM to be at stake.
> (Which, for the President of the United States
> certainly, is true 24/7 literally every moment of
> the time between the time s/he became president
> and the time that president's successor took
> office.)


That is one of the problems with the generic term Jew. It has numerous meanings to the point of having almost no meaning. An atheist or agnostic with Jewish ancestors is a Jew. Then some people get all hung up on how many ancestors/what percentage constitutes someone's ethnic Jewishness. A gentile who has converted to Judaism is a Jew. Then there are Orthodox, Haredi, Hasidic, Sephardic Haredi, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist, and I am sure I missed some. I cannot think of any other situations where an ethnicity (actually multiple ethnicities; Ashkenazi which is composed of people of an admixture of many differing European and Asian ancestries and Sephardic, which is also not as clear cut as once thought) and a group of religious sects all use the same label. It is a situation that would be replicated if Christians were actually referred to as Italians. Then the question would become, Are you an Ethnic Italian, Catholic Italian, Southern Baptist Italian, Mormon Italian, etc?

Referring to someone as a 'Jew' is actually not informative.

Goofy religious beliefs like the lucky longjohns would understandably alarm voters, but the other guy who won't eat certain foods unless his grocer has paid some religious nut to place a stamp of approval on the label gets a free pass. Go figure.