Bill Maher Performs "Un-Baptism" Of Mitt Romney'S Deceased Father-In-Law

[smac97]

Here (warning: language at the link):

Bill Maher is making waves (and history) after performing the very first "unbaptism" live on HBO.

The outspoken atheist took it upon himself to free the late father of Mitt Romney's wife from his posthumous baptism, in which he was named a member of the Mormon religion.

"In case you didn't hear, it was discovered last week that Edward Davies, Ann Romney's father -- an enthusiastically anti-religious scientist who called organized faith 'hogwash,' was posthumously baptized in the Mormon tradition 14 months after he died," he said on Friday's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher. "They tried to do it sooner, but he wouldn't stop spinning in his grave."

Donning a sorcerer's hat and wielding a magic wand, Maher then produced a black and white photograph of Davies, on which he performed his mystical ritual. The brief ceremony was made complete with references to Laverne and Shirley, Harry Potter and The Blair Witch Project.

"By the power granted in me by the Blair Witch," he declared, "I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the *** alone."

"Brother Edward, in this world you had to put up with Mitt Romney," he concluded. "You've suffered enough."

A few thoughts:

1. Maher is obviously intending to offend, whereas the LDS practice of proxy baptism is not intended to offend.

2. This actually doesn't bother me that much. If anything, Maher has just lost any sort of claim to outrage at the practice of proxy baptisms. His exploitation of Edward Davies to make a political attack is, I think, decidedly more objectionable than family members performing a private religious ceremony on behalf of Mr. Davies.

3. I think Maher exposes his religious bigotry when he does things like this. Take, for example, the treatment of LDS proxy baptisms by Erik Jaffe, a contributor to a group law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy:

I actually find it somewhat endearing that Mormons are concerned enough about my erstwhile soul to try and protect it in a non-intrusive manner after my death. Other religious groups are not so considerate and instead seek to intimidate the @#%$ out of you or otherwise confront and demean you while you are alive in a supposed effort to save your soul. I have my doubts about the true motives of the hell-and-brimstone types, but the Mormons seem perfectly genuine to me. At worst it is no-harm, no-foul; at best they do me a great service.

Also consider the comments of Eugene Volokh on the same topic (both Jaffe and Volokh are Jewish, and were specifically discussing a controversy over the practice of LDS proxy baptisms for deceased Holocaust victims:

If you're Mormon, then presumably you'd want your relatives baptized. If you're not Mormon, then presumably you would think that some Mormon in some temple somewhere going through some ritual while mentioning people's names would be spiritually pointless. It would have no effect on the people, on their afterlives (if you think they have afterlives), on God, or on anything else. So what's the problem?

...

The Mormons aren't forcing anything on any living person. They're not exhuming anyone's body. They aren't insulting anyone, except insofar as they're suggesting that their religion is the right one, and that people ought to want to convert to it -- and if that itself qualifies as an insult, then it seems to me that people are too easily insulted.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is similarly unimpressed with complaints about vicarious baptism:

I could not care less if the Mormons baptize me after I'm dead. It won't affect me. I'll always be a Jew, in this life and the next. If this is part of Mormon practice and belief, and they do it in the privacy of their own ritual, and it doesn't affect me in the slightest, why should I care? People's beliefs are their own business. It's how they treat others that is everyone's business. What I care about is how much the Mormons support Israel today, not what they do with Jewish souls in what they regard as the afterlife.

4. Maher's apparently objection to proxy baptism makes no sense. A person who objects to proxy baptisms would have to admit that the LDS Church and its truth claims are what they claim to be (else why complaint about a private religious ceremony?). Such a person would have to admit that vicarious baptisms do have an effect in the hereafter. Such a person would also have to admit that this "effect" would be a benefit to one's ancestors, not a detriment. As Mr. Jaffe put it, "the Mormons seem perfectly genuine to me. At worst it is no-harm, no-foul; at best they do me a great service."

Thoughts?

-Smac

[blackstrap]

I think that we should pray for Bill..... that in the near future,he come down with a severe case of .....laryngitis.

[jwhitlock]

I met Eugene Volokh years ago when he was a teenager working with computers; very, very intelligent kid back then. Good to see that he's kept a balanced perspective over the years.

Given the absolutely poisonous political climate in this country, and the vitriol heaped on Mormonism from some quarters, I suspect that we haven't seen the worst in connection with Mitt and Mormonism. It may be that some of what comes out of the woodwork will be so offensive and/or ludicrous that it may cause even some shallow thinkers to wonder if we're really "that bad", much like the antics of some anti-Mormons outside of General Conference have reflected badly on the perception of anti-Mormons as a whole. Maher was pandering to the believers in his religion; perhaps he has also alienated many others who are not Mormons by his methodology.

Interesting times we live in.

[MorningStar]

Exactly. If you don't believe it to be binding, then why does anyone care? People freak out as if we're making their ancestors Mormon against their will.

[Duncan]

Maher has his reward

[Sky]

Bill Maher is an anti-Christ.

[Libs]

I think he (Maher) is doing it more to "entertain" than anything else.

People freak out as if we're making their ancestors Mormon against their will.

Unfortunately, that is what people think, if they know little about Mormonism (which is probably most people).

[altersteve]

Maher's said and done some very disrespectful things, but this is by far one of the worst. If I ever had the slightest shred of respect for him before now, this killed it.

[The Nehor]

Cute. I'm going to treat it like I hope non-believers in the LDS faith treat our ordinance. He doesn't have the power to do anything. It isn't hurting anyone. Let him have his fun. If God wants to strike him down for blaspheming that is his affair not mine.

[bluebell]

Bill Maher is a nob. He's one of those rare few who actually seek to make the world a more hostile and contentious place.

[followerofemmanuel]

I will try and remember to pray for Bill when I feel frustrated with his approach. He is entitled to his own opinions, but he seems to go out of his way to tear down people and their beliefs. He knocks all religions with hostility. He's lost and is in need of redemption....aww... as was I before I recieved the mercy of my Savior. Heavenly Father, will you please get a hold of Bill's life, cause him to hear you and see you and come to know you, in full surrender, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen!

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I posted about this on my facebook page this morning. It's in line with what you said Smac. Here is what I said:

Bill Maher is a moron, as always, but I thought I would address one of his more recent stunts that make give atheists and agnostics everywhere a bad name (really, if atheist's could excommunicate for poor representation, the should make him a candidate).

Problem 1) People of the LDS faith do not perform baptism by proxy that makes anyone Mormon. It's performance of an ordinance that turns a key for them, but they don't have to go through the door in LDS theology. They are not listed as members, current, former, or future after a proxy baptism.

Problem 2) LDS people perform such ordinances by proxy out of love and a hope born of love. Bill Maher obviously did his thing just to mock. Even if an outside party views both as silly, the purpose behind the action is noticeabley different. Maher doesn't believe that what he does has any ramifications spiritually, since he doesn't believe in spirit. Thus his sole goal is to be offensive and mocking. LDS proxy ordinances may be offensive to some (although it's rare when understood), but it's certainly not the goal.

Problem 3) I'm not offended. I realize my faith has somehow been mocked, but most LDS are going to look at him as a clueless idiot, mainly for the two reasons I listed above. None of us think what he did has any power, and neither does he. What, does he expect us to go perform another proxy-baptism? What a maroon. He's only made himself look more like a bigot or a C-grade comedian.

[KevinG]

Bill who?

[Duncan]

Bill who?

well, news to me I pronouce his name "May-her" and but apparently its pronounced, "Marr" and what is more I pronounce Pahoran as "Pay-hor-ran" yet I have heard others say it as "pa-hor-run" or something. Now back to your regular programming!

[why me]

What needs to happen is for other religious faiths to confront Bill and his anti-mormonism. He would never mock the muslim faith or the other religious groupings outside of christianity. This makes him a coward and a hypocrite. But Americans can unite against his bigotry and make some noise. America should be a tolerant nation of religious practices and when a TV personality steps out of line, there needs to be an effort to confront it through the airwaves.

Bill is a bigot..and an attention grabber.

[Tarski]

South Park is far more offensive in its treatment of things people hold sacred.

Yet, I hardly ever hear younger Mormons do anything but occasionaly try get some "I'm cool too" points by declaring that they like South Park. The hate on Maher for this little bit of silliness seems overwrought.

I suspect that Maher's bigger "sin" is his politics.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Tarski

[cdowis]

I think we are missing the point:

1. He does not intend to offend us because, quite frankly, we are not his intended audience.

He does not care what we think.

2. It is all about money.

People will pay him to play this role and he is playing to his audience.

As for me, who cares what he does and thinks. He is off my radar.

Edited February 5, 2012 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

This litle gadfly has been around for a while and he can be quite funny at times. His politics stink and he is an atheist. I think we need thicker skin; he is mocking the sacred and he has done that type of thing before. Didn't he put out a movie that did the same thing a few years ago?

There are certainly times when we need to stand up and say when someone has gone too far; this is not one of them. As someone said above, we are not his audience and he is being paid to make his audience laugh. I suspect he did so. Let's move on; Billy-bob does not merit our attention.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I actually agree with his politics. it is his attitude towards Christians especially LDS Christian that draws attention to his small minded bigotry.

[Tarski]

Tarski:

I actually agree with his politics. it is his attitude towards Christians especially LDS Christian that draws attention to his small minded bigotry.

You do realize that he does not want to take away your right to practice your religion--right?

He only finds it absurd and figures he has the right to say so. And, given that he is a comedian, it stands to reason that he will make fun of something he finds absurd.

He makes fun of Scientology also and for similar reasons. Are you bent out of shape about that?

Have you never thought, even for a second, that it might be a good thing if fewer people joined Scientology because Maher's comedic mocking?

[selek1]

The hate on Marr for this little bit of silliness seems overwrought.

And yet Tarski would be among those screaming the loudest had Maher done a pantomime about eating watermelon while wearing blackface.

This rates as "no big deal" in his book because he and Maher share a common bigotry.

I suspect that Marr's bigger "sin" is his politics.

This ignores the basic facts of the matter. Maher is discussed on this board only in reference to his anti-religious tantrums, not because of his politics in general.

He is only mentioned on these boards when his publicity stunts reach new lows of vulgarity, lack of class, and excess of crass.

You know- the very behaviors most celebrated at the Shady Rest.

Maher's behavior doesn't phase Tarski because he is quite at home in a forum dedicated to that sort of derision and mockery.

This litle gadfly has been around for a while and he can be quite funny at times.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

I can't think of a single instance in which he was actually funny- his schtick is instead to be meanly amusing. His humor consists entirely of tearing other people down.

His politics stink and he is an atheist.

Neither is salient to the discussion in my opinion.

More pertinent is the fact that his career and style are built on mockery, derision, and ridiculing others in the meanest (in both senses of the word) and profane manner possible.

I think we need thicker skin;

Why? As has been pointed out already, Maher is below the radar for most of the Mormon faithful.

Those who are aware of his antics have every right to condemn those antics as deliberately offensive, willfully hurtful, and noxiously bigoted.

No one is disputing that Maher has the right to make an *** of himself in public.

That having been said, we, in turn, have the right to condemn that behavior.

His First Amendment rights do not abridge ours, nor are we required to be silent out of respect for his alleged "comic genius".

Maher's behavior was a direct and deliberate attack on Mormon belief and dignity.

In attempting to denigrate and dehumanize a segment of the population with whom he disagrees, Maher's antics are no different than those which deride Jews as sneaky, conniving money lenders, or deride Mexicans as dirty, lazy, or stupid.

My point about the blackface and watermelon was deliberate. The parallels are clear.

Would you suggest that an African- American offended by such behavior also needs "thicker skin"?

he is mocking the sacred and he has done that type of thing before. Didn't he put out a movie that did the same thing a few years ago?

Yes, he did.

And the fact that he was rewarded- rather than roundly condemned- for that behavior has led him to new lows in an effort to keep his name in the papers and to remain "relevant".

Those who subsist on shock and notoriety to fuel their career are constantly reinventing themselves- sinking to new lows as their audiences become increasingly jaded.

There are certainly times when we need to stand up and say when someone has gone too far; this is not one of them.

I respectfully disagree. This sort of behavior needs to be nipped in the bud, rather than to fester and pollute the entire garden.

As someone said above, we are not his audience and he is being paid to make his audience laugh.

So were minstrel shows in which "blacks" were derided was stupid, inferior, and held up as legitimate targets for bigotry and ridicule.

How is that prejudice any less acceptable than Maher's?

Edited February 5, 2012 by selek1

[Sethbag]

I've usually thought that the response to baptism for the dead by others, for example the Jewish relatives of Holocaust victims, was a little overwrought, but I recently had a second thought about this.

We know that most religions think that they're the correct one, and by corollary the others are not correct, but for the most part we pretend that we don't believe this when we're amongst others. It's simply not polite to go about telling everyone else that their religions aren't true, and ours is. Instead, the polite thing is to keep our opinions to ourselves, and keep our practice of our chosen religion a private matter.

Baptism for the dead, however, flies in the face of this. If you're a Jewish relative of a Holocaust survivor who's been posthumously baptised into the Mormon church, what the Mormon Church has said, through this action, is: your beliefs are wrong, ours are right, and we are correcting that for your grandma or whoever, because we know better than you do what they need and ought to have.

I agree that faithful Mormons believe that a person needs this, and consider being baptised for the dead an altruistic act. I'm only saying that from the point of view of others who don't believe this, it's a definite shot across the bow that we're not really used to anymore in our society, and if it doesn't go over well, that's probably why.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Sethbag

[stemelbow]

I've usually thought that the response to baptism for the dead by others, for example the Jewish relatives of Holocaust victims, was a little overwrought, but I recently had a second thought about this.

We know that most religions think that they're the correct one, and by corollary the others are not correct, but for the most part we pretend that we don't believe this when we're amongst others. It's simply not polite to go about telling everyone else that their religions aren't true, and ours is. Instead, the polite thing is to keep our opinions to ourselves, and keep our practice of our chosen religion a private matter.

Baptism for the dead, however, flies in the face of this. If you're a Jewish relative of a Holocaust survivor who's been posthumously baptised into the Mormon church, what the Mormon Church has said, through this action, is: your beliefs are wrong, ours are right, and we are correcting that for your grandma or whoever, because we know better than you do what they need and ought to have.

I agree that faithful Mormons believe that a person needs this, and consider being baptised for the dead an altruistic act. I'm only saying that from the point of view of others who don't believe this, it's a definite shot across the bow that we're not really used to anymore in our society, and if it doesn't go over well, that's probably why.

I don't know. If anyone is part of a particular religion, it seems apparent to me they at least think the religion is good and useful. It shows quite a conviction to suggest, "we are right and we care enough that everyone else should participate in this truth". Its missing the boat to try and paint our intentions as "well you disrespect what this person thought in this life so much, that you are trying to make them something they never ever tried to associate themselves with".

When I think of this, I realize how easy it is for people to be offended.

[Storm Rider]

I've usually thought that the response to baptism for the dead by others, for example the Jewish relatives of Holocaust victims, was a little overwrought, but I recently had a second thought about this.

We know that most religions think that they're the correct one, and by corollary the others are not correct, but for the most part we pretend that we don't believe this when we're amongst others. It's simply not polite to go about telling everyone else that their religions aren't true, and ours is. Instead, the polite thing is to keep our opinions to ourselves, and keep our practice of our chosen religion a private matter.

Baptism for the dead, however, flies in the face of this. If you're a Jewish relative of a Holocaust survivor who's been posthumously baptised into the Mormon church, what the Mormon Church has said, through this action, is: your beliefs are wrong, ours are right, and we are correcting that for your grandma or whoever, because we know better than you do what they need and ought to have.

I agree that faithful Mormons believe that a person needs this, and consider being baptised for the dead an altruistic act. I'm only saying that from the point of view of others who don't believe this, it's a definite shot across the bow that we're not really used to anymore in our society, and if it doesn't go over well, that's probably why.

Very much a two sided coin. If our religion is false, then it does and means nothing. Should we all take offense at nothing? More importantly, should we teach society that it is acceptable to take offense at nothing? I find it offensive to be offended by nothing; I find that teaching society to be so creates a pack of meal-mouthed, whining victims that seek out offense where none is intended and that will never stop their whing as long as someone listens. I quit listening and everyone else should also. There are real offenses to care about in the world.

[stemelbow]

Very much a two sided coin. If our religion is false, then it does and means nothing. Should we all take offense at nothing? More importantly, should we teach society that it is acceptable to take offense at nothing? I find it offensive to be offended by nothing; I find that teaching society to be so creates a pack of meal-mouthed, whining victims that seek out offense where none is intended and that will never stop their whing as long as someone listens. I quit listening and everyone else should also. There are real offenses to care about in the world.

I am quite reminded of people willing to criticize anything just because it is easy to criticize. In a way, it comes off as mere whining to me too--that is kind of what this little thing by Maher comes off as to me. Its far too easy to criticize these days. In truth I think criticizing should be quite difficult. Nobody really seems serious about it though.