Brad Pitt To Bill Maher: Gay Marriage And Pot Are Good, Religion Is Bad
Posted by: Wendy Atterberry
Filed in:
entertainment, video
9:19AM, Monday August 17th 2009
Brad Pitt stopped by the set of “Real Time” Friday night and chatted with Bill Maher about his pro-gay marriage, pro-pot, and anti-religion stance. “What is it you don’t like about religion?” Maher asked.
“You know, I grew up in a religious family, in a religious community and it just doesn’t make sense to me. It just doesn’t work for me in the long run,” Pitt said. “I never wanted to step on anyone else’s religion and their beliefs—that’s what’s great about our country—until I started seeing it defining policy. ... Like gay marriage, you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can’t do that.”
Maher also recalled being at a New Year’s Eve party where Pitt was “on the floor” (but “very sober”) rolling perfect joint after perfect joint all night. “Like a machine,” Maher said, “better than a cigarette.”
“I’m an artist,” Pitt replied, but explained he’s given up smoking so he can be an “alert” dad.
My favorite part of the interview is when Maher says Brad is so polite, he’s “truly from Missouri.” As a fellow Missourian, and someone who went to college in Brad’s hometown, I have to concur: Brad’s a Missouri boy through and through. [via LA Times Blogs]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 08:36 am: [report]
I missed this on Friday. I must download when I get home tonight. Thanks for the heads up.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 08:49 am: [report]
I may be the only woman on earth who doesn’t think Brad is sexy… however, I am starting to fall for him a little bit after hearing this interview
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]
@brandyalexander: It’s not the first time nor the last that he’s been on Maher’s show.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 09:01 am: [report]
That’s cool. I like Bill Maher, for the most part. I don’t have a tv, though, so I tend to miss out on these things…
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 09:03 am: [report]
@brandyalexander: It appears you have a computer though. Problem solved.
brandyalexander
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]
ah, yes, but only at work
bogart4017
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 09:35 am: [report]
People love to hear this guy talk. Everytime he does i get the mental image of the character he played in “True Romance” and i start laughing all over again.
Humble Bee
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 11:12 am: [report]
@bogart,
Bill mentioned that, and he said that he was a very good actor, too good in that movie.
I have to agree with Bill when he says Brad can do anything and people will still love him, he’s just that type of guy. Very likeable. I did hate Ashton Kutcher’s appearance, Brad seemed very laid back, he spoke from what he actually knew, unlike Kucther, he seemed very scripted like he studied to look “smart”. It was really annoying and fake.
I also loved the fact that Bill said he was really polite and Brad responded with F*ck you! Gotta love him.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 11:16 am: [report]
@Humble: Kutcher has been on several times too. I think he gets the ‘stupid’ comments undeservedly.
gevlife
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 11:32 am: [report]
Bill Maher was in this movie Religulous which reminds me of this because it points out all the ridiculous things about religion. It’s also HILARIOUS.
ChoJinn
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 12:01 pm: [report]
I picked up Maher’s book New Rules a while back; good read. Though as time goes on he seems more interested in starting controversy with overbroad condemnations than actually fostering productive debate. Saying “religion is bad” is as obtuse as saying “drugs are bad.” People’s misuse of those things is what is bad, not the belief system or chemical compounds themselves. Not categorically religious myself, but the teflon slope between “religious” and “clinic bombing bible/koran thumper” can be supremely disingenuous. Might as well presume all homosexuals have AIDS.
Similarly: “I never wanted to step on anyone else’s religion and their beliefs—that’s what’s great about our country—until I started seeing it defining policy. ... Like gay marriage, you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can’t do that.”
Understatement of the millennium? Christianity and Islam have defined CIVILIZATION for most of the last 2,000 years. Sure, depriving people of an arguably fundamental right based on a dozen or so words out of Leviticus - which simultaneously advocates slave ownership - is pretty goofy, but that alone should not be enough for us to totally eschew what is, in large part, a decent philosophical foundation for a functioning society.
powplz
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 12:26 pm: [report]
@ChoJinn - um, no. Christianity has defined WESTERN civilization for many, many centuries, not all civilizations. There were many civilizations flourishing in the absence of Christianity all over the Americas until British/Euro explorers showed up, not to mention how long Asian cultures have flourished without it as a major influence and continue to do so to this day. There is more to the world than your western take on things.
ChoJinn
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 12:54 pm: [report]
@joyy: I actually said Christianity and Islam, and that was just to name the big two “organized religions,” whatever that even means, to account for most of what now dogmatically permeates the non-secular East and West. Those pre-invasion cultures - the American natives, south and east Asians - of course had their own belief systems, however I’d argue the fact that most those systems and their cultures were summarily dominated renders them less relevant. That being said, I need to go polish my Xipe Totec statue.
powplz
wrote on August 17 2009 @ 01:09 pm: [report]
@ChoJinn - yes, but neither religion has actually dominated that much of the world for 2,000+ years, and there are plenty of nonJudeo-Christiam-Islam-policy-influenced civilizations, many of which still exist today. My point was that especially in America, Christianity is still relatively new (last 500 years or so, not the 2,000 years Christianity has actually been around (and Islam is even newer)0.
It just seems silly to me to make a blanket statment about civilization (as if that’s ever been one cohesive unit) over 2,000 years when for most of that time, much more of the world hadn’t heard of, let alone been dominated by Christianity (or Islam).