Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on. Its like asking a Palestinian to talk about Israel and then inserting those comments as anti-semitism.
No he was honest. Just because he needed to resort to trickery to get people to answer the tough questions he asks doesn't mean he wasn't honest about what he was reporting on. No. Nothing at all like that.
If you mispresent yourself, you are dishonest. Simple as that. Or do you think it was honest when Ben Stein did it to Dawkins?
That's a bizarre statement. If an atheist and a Christian both commit a hypothetical murder, shooting someone during a mugging, do you believe those murders reflect something about atheism and Christianity?
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
No it isn't. If an atheist chooses to be anti-religious, that has nothing to do with atheism, which merely states that there are no Gods.
Like Bill Mahr? Dawkins? People are always concerned with other people. Some people think mocking other people's belief is tolerance, while mocking their colour is intolerance. Others think its the other way around. So who is right?
Sam, I really think you should surrender your moderator status. With the ignorant blabber you poison these forums with, I think it's best that you not be in charge of anything.
I suppose by ignorant blabber you mean I should ignore the fact that Maher not only misrepresented himself to the people he interviewed but also contrived to edit their comments to present only what he wanted to depict, while generalising against all religions of which he had very little knowlegde.
You can't help your skin color, but you can legitimately be criticized for your opinions and beliefs which are of your own choosing.
