Maher, Noah, and the Paradox of Blasphemy

I watch Bill Maher--I don't agree with him all the time, and sometimes I think he can be crude (heh, me too, come to think of it), but what I find fascinating is the way he gets up the nose of fundamentalists. Here's Maher the other week regarding the bad image one might get about God from that Book people are always talking about:



And just between you, me, and the rest of the Internet--he has a point. Old Testament God is very smitey and doesn't seem to be especially discriminating about who he does the smiting against. And people to this very day use that kind of smitey Godhead to harsh the mellows of other folks the whole world round, whether it's saying Gays or Boobs cause earthquakes, or even personal messages of how people done asked for it by not forgiving their abusive parents.

So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that some followers of Smitey Godhead want Maher to be punished for blasphemy:

The evangelical activist said Maher is known for his anti-religious views, but Emmanuel said “this time he’s gone too far.” 

“He may have protection under the First Amendment to say whatever slanderous thing that comes out of his toilet bowl brain, but that does not mean Christians should turn the other cheek,” Emmanuel said. 

He agreed with the Psalms 14 passage that questioned the character of anyone who would believe in his heart there was no God, suggesting Maher and outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens had much in common with the Devil.

Yeah--where was it ever written that Christians should turn the other cheek, anyway? Maybe this Tristan Emmanuel fellow is okay with people being punished for blasphemy, but to me, that's a little too much like the state religion of the Roman Empire. You all remember that, of course. I seem to recall at least one Judean rabble-rouser who ran with Zealots, prostitutes, and money-collectors being literally crucified for just that kind of offense against the sensibilities of those who were in charge. (Had he been there at the time, Emmanuel might have just opened up a falafel stand to serve the hungry Golgothan gawkers.) I don't know what my point is--maybe there's an example Christians could follow regarding the scoffing of unbelievers who "know not what they do"? Just wondering.

But there's also another piece to what Maher is saying: there are people who accept the Noah's Ark story as literal fact--take Bill Hemmer from Fox News.  I don't know what is sadder--that someone takes as Gospel a debunked Ark-recovery story (that was hyped on his network though), or that in 2014 AD (ahem) thinks it took "2000 years" to find Noah's Ark. I know I zoned out during all of those "begats", too, but I'm pretty sure the Flood and the birth of baby Jesus are not contemporary events. But I think it's more important to point out that much of the Old Testament really isn't the equivalent of eye-witness coverage of important historical events. The flood, like other tales, is largely a myth.

And yes, I know, it's the "nutpicking" again. But people with these beliefs about punishing those who disagree with them can sometimes rise in this world, and that really worries me. And also, a lot of the literalism about religion has an impact on education in this country, and I worry about that, too.