Murder has long been taboo or illegal or immoral in civilised societies. Your god was not required for that. All that was necessary is that murder destabilises society. Note that murder is wrongful killing. Killing isn’t completely prohibited, because for the purposes of a society, execution and war may be necessary (at least from a leadership view). So if it was truly a divine moral mandate above the petty interests of this world, one would think it would be an absolute prohibition on killing, not a provisional law against a particular kind of killing that happens to be antithetical to the purposes of the earthly government and the society it governs.

By the way, if you compare the first commandment to the first amendment of the US constitution, do you think these two are really compatible? How is that a foundation? No, common ethical ideas are the foundation of both some religious morals and some secular laws. That doesn’t mean that religion is necessary for ordered, fair or reasonable government, and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that religion in government produces quite the opposite. Google “Saudi Arabia” if you don’t believe me.

Although I think your point is well taken, in light of your response, I’m not sure using “amiannoying.com” is a particularly effective device to decide whether or not to consider boycotting someone, considering that Roger Ebert rated as high as 60% annoying (in 2002), and currently rates 49% annoying, whereas Sarah Palin currently rates a mere 51.78% Annoying. It is interesting, however, that Palin’s daughter, Bristol, rates 65.62% Annoying.

Also, consider who that site considers most annoying: the top five are Muslim extremists. Seven of the top ten are Muslim extremists. The other three include Sean (Diddy) Combs, NAMBLA, and a mass murderer. Eleventh place falls to Nathan Lane, who is apparently annoying because, well, he acts gay. Just for the fun of it, I looked up Pope Benedict XVI. He’s currently 38.06% Annoying. Last year, he was 53.86% Annoying, but perhaps we should use the year with the most votes, 2005, in which he was merely 42.08% Annoying. I guess he wasn’t gay enough to match Nathan Lane’s impressive 82.94%.

Reasons, according to the site, that Nathan Lane (82.94%) might be annoying:
He is overly dramatic.
He is flamboyant.
He is typecast as a gay guy.
His show ‘Encore, Encore’ was cancelled rather quickly.

Reasons, according to the site, that Pope Benedict (38.06%) might be annoying:
He was a member of the Hitler Youth, a stark contrast from the previous Pope, who was part of the resistance.
He shot down planes for Nazi Germany in the anti-aircraft corps.
He was elected pope at the old age of 78 (only two years short of the 80-year age limit on popes).
He is against birth control of all kinds.
He is against female priests.
He is against Turkey’s membership in the European Union because it is a Muslim country.
He disappointed those who were pushing for a third world pope.
He whines constantly about how the Catholic Church has collapsed in Europe but refuses to change it to fit the modern era.
He had unflattering nicknames, such as the ‘Panzerkardinal,’ ‘Cardinal No’ and ‘God’s rottweiler.’
He bears a strong resemblance to Ian McDiarmid’s character Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars movies.

Heh, that’s fair and balanced.

I like to read Roger Ebert’s movie reviews because I think they are often unique and well-written, even if I don’t always agree with his conclusions. I know Roger is a “good Catholic”, so even though he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve, I am certain he keeps a statue of Mary somewhere in his home. Roger’s religious beliefs, if accurately recorded, certainly run parallel to his professional work. If his religious beliefs colored his professional work so that his writings were tainted, then it would be reasonable to disregard anything he writes. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

I do wonder about the validity of the comments made by Roger because he has commented or written other criticisms of religion and/or religious leaders at previous times that made me think that his own version of religion was some vague form of deism rather than a creationist definition of reality. Still, I can read his movie reviews and not care one whit about his earth-creation stance.

Has anyone checked to see if Roger really is annoying?
http://www.amiannoying.com/view.aspx?ID=1120

I do think it is important to recognize that if theists ignored everything that atheists produced just because we don’t believe in their religion, the gaps between us would become ever wider and deeper. Instead of ignoring Roger Ebert, shouldn’t we engage him on this topic and expect intelligent replies? Sarah Palin doesn’t offer sufficient reasons for us to expect an intelligent reply.

Same with Michael Jackson; don’t like him. I don’t like him for various reasons; and pedophilia doesn’t top that list (but it’s on the list) but I like his music; I don’t own any of his music but I’d buy it; I have no problem with that; I liked him the black version of Wizard of Oz (you know, when he was actually black).

I think Tom Cruise is a nutjob; and an idiot. But I still think he’s an okay to good actor; and I will watch his films, I have several of his films on DVD; and though I think he’s a nutjob that doesn’t take away from his ability of acting, or films he has helped create (producing etc.,).

I agree with 90% of Roger Ebert’s reviews; about 10% we disagree on (usually dealing with foreign films and downright degrading films) but I don’t read his reviews because I want to know what kind of religious person he is, I read his reviews to know what he thought of a movie, which he is very specific at times, and since we both mainly agree on what movie would or is good, I highly respect his opinion.

As I used to state to people when I critiqued their work on http://allpoetry.com — “One needs to notice that what a person writes in regards to fiction or their job, or what not, is sometimes separate from who they are outside of that. Meaning, when I critique your work, or I read your work and I point out errors, or praise it or do not praise it, I’m focusing my attention on what you wrote, and not you specifically. I’m able to separate the two, even if you conclude that I’m speaking about you, when I’m not.”

I do this with people, as well. I separate their life outside of their “job”. They are two separate things to me. Roger Ebert has a job, his job is reviewing movies. Tom Cruise has a job, he’s an actor/producer, so when I watch one of his films, I don’t watch it because of his religious beliefs, I watch it because it’s a movie, and it’s fictional, and I may not like it, or I may like it but I don’t judge the film, or his acting ability based on what he believes in religiously or some other attribution outside of his “job”; the same with Spike Lee, and Michael Jackson.

And frankly to these people, and other people who this article is targetted to: “we’re” the brainless.

-Nam

As for Roger Ebert, I’ve never cared much what he has to say anyways.