>[...]Respectively, Emily

Two questions: (1)Since when has Respectively come to mean Respectfully? (2)Is this the future of Journalism? I’ll answer both questions respectively.

One, the Dimwit’s Dictionary says, “[...]no present-day dictionary has yet suggested that respectively, once again, also means respectfully.” Two, “Quite possibly. Yes.”

Clear language…clear thought.

Sincerely yours,
David

“Question everything you read or hear or see or are told. Question it. And try to see the world for what it actually is, as opposed to what someone or some company or some organization or some government is trying to represent it as, or present it as, however they’ve mislabeled it or dressed it up or told you.” George Carlin, 2004 CNN Interview

George Carlin doesn’t need to be lectured about obscenity by someone who refers to a triple amputee as “Stumpy,” and who then accuses those who find the term offensive of not having a sense of humor.

Well, they say the rest of us are going to Hell. That’s pretty harsh too.

If religious people don’t want to be ridiculed, let them stop believing such stupid things.

Isn’t it revealing to see the true kindness of believers, perversely hoping for Carlin’s eternal torment to prove the truth of their fairy tale?

I don’t have much time here, but you are painting with too broad of a stroke about the “liberal” mindset. I live in Austin and know lots of liberals, many of which don’t read Nation and devote their time to worthy causes. I know it’s tempting to slam the people you don’t agree with; it is a real struggle for me to keep from thinking that all Christians, Muslims, etc. are fools for believing in superstition.

I wonder if there are strings attached to the couple’s good works (i. e. becoming a convert); if that’s the case then it is mostly a self-serving gesture. If not, then good for them no matter their religious or political persuasion.

I don’t believe that faith in Christ is the enemy here; I will say that for the most part, Christianity has done a lot of great works around the world. It is a much better world with Protestant and Catholic missionaries in the world to administer food, vaccines, and AIDS medicine (well, maybe not so much the Catholics in regard to the latter) to the nearly billion or more people in the world who are impoverished.

That is interesting that you came to it through Dostoevsky. I’ll admit that when I reflect on my shortcomings I certainly would like to believe in a redeemer of some sort, but I honestly feel like that’s a cop out. No offense to you is intended.

Ultimately I don’t think it matters much in the long run (meaning eon upon eon, millennia after millennia) what I did in this flash of an existence that I have. That is no excuse to do harm to others, but we’re pretty insignificant when you really think about it. There’s a whole other aspect to it that I don’t want to dwell on now, and that is the egocentric, self-inflating nature of religious belief. It is another form of superstition.

Thanks for the discussion, by the way.

But I take issue with your statement that believers who are ignorant ( I assume you mean of science, history, and reason) are at a disadvantage. These people hold out in me the hope for change.

I see your point of view, but I don’t think the point or even a main point is whether George Carlin was rich or not. You’re making a comparison between poor, disadvantaged people and people who believe in something that cannot withstand scrutiny. I’ll concede to a certain point on this, and that is that it is ignorance that leads to blind belief in something, and in that way believers are disadvantaged.

I don’t mind if someone wants to practice what Jesus taught as far as humility, generosity, and compassion. That is a beautiful thing, but don’t try to make me believe that the ghost of someone who may or may not have actually existed (Jesus) is somewhere still roaming around and cares about me. Lots of people believe that, and that’s what really astounds me. I don’t see how it could be real.

Carlin was harsh, but sometimes it takes that to bust through to something. Bill Hicks was even more scathing, and he was one of the most insightful social comedians I’ve ever heard. I guess I can really understand where Carlin is coming from, but not those offended by him. That shows a lack of understanding on my part but, on the other hand, I was raised as a good ol’ Southern Baptist in Tennessee so I know it from the inside out.

I don’t think that because I can now discriminate between something that is obviously unreal (to me, at least) and things that appear to be truthful (there is no proof of God) makes me an elitist. I believe you were making this insinuation against Carlin, unless I am wildly misreading your post, and I don’t think it fits.

Comedy has deep roots in satire: Satire as practiced in Greek, and later, Roman culture. Unlawful stage dramas, and graphic depictions, were utilized by the powerless and poor masses against the few powerful and rich elite in ancient and medieval times. That is what true satire constitutes today, and has been one of the most powerful – if not the most powerful – tool used by common people against the privileged classes.

But when Carlin demeans hundreds of millions of people of faith in this country (nearly all of whom make in a lifetime what Carlin made in one show), and billions more around the world, it is about as funny as Rush Limbaugh ripping into welfare mothers and their children for taking government assistance. The rich ridiculing common people is not satire, it is instead vulgar.

But that is me. Hey, maybe I don’t have a good sense of humor (though I have been to over a dozen Lewis Black shows), and I will concede this: Carlin was onto something if he was able to have such legions of rabid fans, and have all of these tributes celebrating his life.