Advertisement
“I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. On Real Time, Maher uses (mostly bad) jokes to soften up both his guests and his audience for the serious discourse that inevitably follows, and even though much of Maher’s humor is unbelievably hokey and old-fashioned, there’s something admirable about the marriage he’s arranged between his desire to entertain and his compulsion to interrogate and lay blame.
Hopeful that his feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains.
Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse.
It would be easier to take Maher’s stated project on its face if he, Charles and their editors didn’t insist on undermining the sincerity of the mission at regular intervals with rapid-fire cutaways, usually to either a bit of “ironic” found footage, or to Maher himself, ranting from the back of a moving SUV. Most of the interviews in Religulous, all conducted by Maher, start out almost startlingly strong, with the star’s uncanny knack for cutting directly to the heart of the matter on full display. But whether because his inquisitiveness is in short supply, or because he was never really in the room to learn from his subjects to begin with, Maher almost without fail finds ways to subject his subjects to ridicule. It’s one thing when he and a person of faith get into a debate; it’s frustrating that Maher refuses to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but at least there’s an honesty to an unmitigated conversation between people who legitimately disagree. The real cruelty comes when Maher is polite (or, at least, not aggressively derisive) in person, but then uses cutaways and/or subtitles to make it clear that we’re supposed to share Maher’s conviction that Religious Person X is a drooling idiot. Maybe this is just part of the rules of the post-reality TV game, but such mean-spirited recontextualization, at least in this case, doesn’t feel like the right path towards a greater filmed truth. It doesn’t even produce footage controversial or incendiary enough to justify the methods by which it was obtained.
In Charles’ Borat, oblivious yokels were set up to believe that they were talking to a journalist, and in Religulous, interviewees are made to look like just as much of a stooge. Let’s say Borat’s biggest crime was offering a society lady a bag of his feces; it’s unspeakably offensive, and yet so gleefully absurd that you can’t really file it as cruelty. Like Borat, Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit.
Kevin Buist
FilmCouch #114: The Final Show
Christopher Campbell
Third or Fourth Look at Dakota Fanning...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
Ghostbusters, New York &...
Paul Moore
SITA SINGS THE BLUES available free...
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
hallelujah! i was completely floored when Variety’s Bob Koehler and then the Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt praised the film with such spirited acclaim (c’mon Bob, ” frank, often hilarious but always well-considered conversation.” wtf? And really Kurt? Very, very funny? hardly.) Actually, lately i’ve disagreed more than usual with Koehler, who often makes me scratch my head and ask “did he even watch the same movie i did?” so i’ve been waiting for a sound review that validates my dislike of the film, which i’ve been voicing since july when i saw a rough cut and then in early august when i saw a finished cut. and hell, i’m agnostic (about religion), so i wasn’t even offended by on it on that level; but as a thoughtful, respectful and self-respecting secularist i don’t love this film, kurt. i don’t even like it. karina, I think you nailed it when you wrote that Maher never intended to have a sincere debate with his targets, but rather record a roadshow crusade to defame them and their faith.
Awww…you managed to finish that review without actually saying how your religious sensibilities were offended. That was an insightful read of how the religious in America will mostly handle this movie. If they are smart they’ll never mention how religious they themselves are…wouldn’t want to get lumped in with any of those wingnuts from the movie, would they??
@Mike Hunt, I don’t have any religious sensibilities to offend. it was my filmmaking sensibilities that were offended.
[...] Review of Bill Maher’s Religulous The lovely Karina Longworth states quickly in her review of Religulous that she is [...]
[...] Karina Longworth, “Maher approaches each subject as if in a sincere attempt to gather information, and then –– both in the room with his verbal mockery and attacks, and on a super-diegetic level with the cutaways and after-the-fact on-screen titles illuminating what Maher’s thinking in the moment –– turns the situation into an opportunity to gather comedy at the unwitting subject’s expense. While Sacha Baron Cohen’s fake reporter was armed with a faux naivete that essentially let him off the hook morally, even when he was been ejected from a building, Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing. Either way, it’s still a film in which we’re supposed to cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit.” [...]
Karina, your writing makes doc ethics sexy again.
@bryan, you’ve been waiting for a review to validate your opinion? Jeez, how lame can you get. if you don’t like it, then don’t like it. If you need an reviewer to not like it to validate you, you’re a loser.
IT”S A FRIKKIN COMEDY DOC. He’s a comedian. He wanted to make you laugh first, think second.
[...] “I’m on the street corner peddling doubt.” That’s how Bill Maher categorizes his personal attitude towards and mission against religion in Religulous, and that’s sort of how I feel about Maher’s professional schtick: I am aggressively, even evangelically, skeptical. I’ll stick around and watch his HBO show when I catch it whilst flipping channels, mostly because impressed by his ability to make the quick change from sub-Leno, pun-dependent one-liners to actually asking hard-hitting, legitimately provocative questions of his panelists. A movie review By Karina Longworth [...]
The title of the film is “Religulous”.
- pz
bryan and karina:
i think you both have completely missed the point here. this movie is not a documentary, but rather a comedy. not everyone thinks it’s funny to shamelessly mock and ridicule people because of their religious beliefs, and obviously you’ve both been offended on some level by this.
as most thinking americans know, it’s difficult at best to have logical and thought-provoking debate with strongly believing theists (they’re ability to think rationally is somewhat compromised already, in my opinon), and maher knows this all too well. his film indirectly showcases this fact, but his true purpose hits home with you based on what you’ve said. that purpose, beyond the obvious entertainment, is to cut through the prevailing indoctrinated belief everywhere that religious ridicule is somehow more ‘off-limits’ than ridicule of almost any other outlandish claims.
@ Justin: Well played, sir. This movie will be a breath of fresh air to an Agnostic like me who was raised in the bible belt as a Southern Baptist. Likewise, it’s time for a movie like this when family I have been close to my whole life and cherish would willingly perform a relationship 180 if I expressed my beliefs. It’s not them as people; they’re who I love. It’s their belief and the nail it has the potential to drive between us - regardless of how close we are otherwise - is ridiculous. Religulous… how appropriate. If this issue can be addressed from my perspective with humor (cynically derived or otherwise), then I’ll consider it value added.
Either way, this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed. If you don’t think so, then I suppose you don’t see the problem with a woman killing her children because she wanted to make sure they go to heaven or people who commit atrocities and injustices in the name of religion… on that scale, relationship woes brought about by religion seems like an infinitesimal issue.
Cheer for the guy handing out sacks of shit? Maybe from your perspective, but certainly not mine. I’m cheering for the guy who is sick and tired of having religion shoved down his throat and who has the money to allow me to vicariously live through him on the silver screen! If you think his sacks of shit are putrid, try, try, and try again the stench of holier-than-thou attitudes and threats of eternal damnation, delivered to you as if they’re factually impending instead of derived from questionable 2000 year old texts! With YEARS of the latter under my belt, Maher’s sacks of shit will be more like Glade plug-ins, trust me.
I can’t believe you went there with an open mind. To watch Real Time is to know that Bill Maher completely anti-religious. The title alone should have clued you in to what you were in for.
Great post Stephen.
I can’t wait to see the film Fri.
“I’m cheering for the guy who is sick and tired of having religion shoved down his throat…”
And how is this accomplished? Is he harassed daily by zealots who want to convert him? Does HBO make him have a benediction before every show? Is he denied access to goods or services because of his atheism (yes, he is an atheist; if he truly had doubts about the existence of a deity, he’d state his position without the certainty he clearly flaunts about his convictions.)
As a tolerant, open-minded, left-leaning, centrist Democrat, who believes in the separation of church and state, I am the one who is sick and tired of being lumped in with the Falwells, Hagees, Robertsons and their ilk, because of my personal and mostly private religious beliefs.
Maher had every right to make this film and have as many people who agree with him on this matter watch it. But let’s be clear here: when it comes to matters and people of faith, he is a disingenuous bigot with no true desire to find out what makes religious people tick, just a hearty need to mock them mercilessly and flaunt his self-assumed superiority.
Very sad, indeed.
Kiko:
Ah, yes. I love how you conveniently dodged the noteworthy points of my post. Sadly, I am quite used to that. You know, I have to thank you for putting it into perspective that the effort put forth to make this comedy/documentary comes from a guy who has no REAL purpose or ever had any conviction with this topic other than to “flaunt his self-assumed superiority.” If that’s the case, then Bill certainly went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY overboard simply to massage his superiority complex you imply he has! Yeah… makes perfect sense to me! Sure… right.
As much as you would like to believe Bill’s ONLY mission was to berate people of faith, his objectives are clear. Search YouTube for his interview with Larry King. Bill Maher does have a way of being biased and offensive with his views on various topics, but the culmination of 2 years of traveling around to do this documentary serves a greater purpose than having offended you and insulted your personal “private” beliefs.
If you’re so sick of being compared to the loonies, then try choosing a different faith. Besides, you asked me how religion is being shoved down his throat, so now I’ll ask you, just WHO is comparing you to the religious loonies you listed? YOU are… unless your “private” faith isn’t truly as private as you want everyone to think it is. Likewise, you seem readily willing to lump yourself in with your preferred religious and political views, so I guess you don’t mind being lumped in with everyone else who has/had similar views? Well, everyone but the people you deem looney, of course. Interesting…
I’m not just some random cynical guy who knows jack-shit about religion and who is looking for a good laugh at the faithful. Some of the people I care about the most in my life (living AND dead) were amongst some of the most faithful I’ve ever known! It’s just a shame that the very same book many of them called “the truth” contains so much content I know they wouldn’t stand for otherwise but I digress. This isn’t about how much I do or do not know about religion.
Look, long story short, rationale certainly isn’t getting people of faith to examine their beliefs a little closer, so Bill Maher obviously set out to create a comedic documentary that plays a heavier psychological effect on the faithful. When someone tells YOU, a person of faith, that you’re wrong, no matter HOW MUCH REASON they bring to the table, you tune them out… but when someone OFFENDS your belief, ahhhh! All of a sudden, you listen and you listen CLOSELY because you’re going to want to REACT. It’s a shame that it has come to this and that people of faith need this kind of approach just to LISTEN… but of course, it will probably be received as Bill being a bully and having no real purpose underneath his comedic delivery.
Very sad, indeed.
It’s time to step out of your little bubble of life and look at the BIG picture RIGHT HERE on earth instead of wishing that when you die, you’ll make it to some great place where you’ll eat, drink, cough, breathe, sneeze, piss, and shit happy little rainbows for all eternity. Open your eyes and see why civilizations have failed previously and look at what happens when a president makes decisions to start wars after consulting with “a higher power”. Yes, you WILL BE compared to them because of your belief. If you believe the same thing, you are an enabler of those people. Private faith or public, YOU continue to support the belief.
Here again, I’m confused as to how your belief is so private if you’re ready to admit feeling so offended and “lumped in”. Here’s a novel concept: Why not attempt to (publicly) differentiate yourself a little instead of publicly telling everyone how you’re privately offended? Maybe then, people could take your argumentative words for a little more than simply face-value…
Karina wrote “don’t have any religious sensibilities to offend. it was my filmmaking sensibilities that were offended.”
And yet you repeatedly use religious terminology to criticize Maher. To wit: “Maher telegraphs an extremely hostile self-rightousness about what he’s doing.” “Self-righteous”? That’s the province of theists; atheists might be considered “smug”.
You wrote “It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick”. Is there actually any mystery about what makes religious people tick? None of MY acquaintances are mystified; I doubt that Maher is mystified, and I doubt most of his audience is either. People don’t believe in fairy tales because it furthers their career or it fixes their car. They believe because (1) they were inculcated by family or culture, (2) because they want easy answers, and/or (3) because they like the idea of an afterlife and punishment for “sinners”. Belief ain’t rocket science.
You dismiss Maher’s position that “everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse” without addressing the issue that he is essentially correct. “Everyday religious practice” like Sarah Palin’s is indeed apocalyptic, or at least leads to it. If she becomes President and maintains her fundamentalist beliefs about the “end of the world” and the “rapture”, will you revise your views about the risks of human-caused apocalypse? Pussy-footing around it does no good.
Face it: Maher is preaching to the choir, and the choir is quite happy to watch him skewer the fairy-tale believers. He’s not trying to “convert” anyone.
Lets give lobotomies to everyone who doesnt think the correct gospel according to Maher.
Bravo Kiko! I wonder if Stephen is a pseudonym for Maher. My goodness, the rage!!! But then what can you expect from someone who can canonize someone like Maher.
In terms of stereotyping and generalizing, look who is talking (”If you’re so sick of being compared to the loonies, then try choosing a different faith.” ) Pardon me Stephen, your bigotry is showing!
The mark of someone not worthy of respect or objectivity is when that person continuously mocks his debator repeating incessantly one phrase- sadly- used by the debator instead of calmly using words of reason in a rational tone. Have you tried therapy, Stephen? Ive heard drugs can help as well.
Your review is a sack of shit. Maher is funny and right on about the evils of religion.
Andy,
My bigotry is showing, huh? Was that meant to be a quip? Your generalization falls short in that, while I am absolutely religiously intolerant, I am far from a bigot. To get you to understand why I am religiously intolerant would take more time than I am willing to dedicate to you but one of the many sides of my intolerance is that I am a little too humble and open-minded to assume a personal relationship with a God in a world where said God should be making himself/herself self-evident to the people who could REALLY benefit from grace. Perhaps that is selfish of me to think, and if so, then consider me selfish. If you believe in the Bible, the Qu’ran, or the Talmud, I loathe your belief. It’s real simple. If you believe in principles of morals and ethics that are contained in those texts, then claim those but do not claim belief in a book you do not know the full contents of.
Pardon me, Andy, while I laugh at your finger-pointing and mockery while simultaneously telling me the mark of a non-worthy debator. Drugs? Therapy? Yes, we can all clearly see why you would be much more deserving of respect or objectivity than me. Good point. Round of applause for Andy, everyone! Boy, it sure must be nice to be perfect like you, Andy, since you imply I am lesser than you by offering some sort of therapy or drugs. Please allow me to move this bigotry of mine over so that you may have a seat for yours, Andy.
I maintain everything I have written on this page, regardless of if you consider me a bigot, in need of therapy, or some other ambiguous generalization masked behind a quip. Much respect, Andy. You’ve certainly earned it!
-Stephen
Robert,
Very well-written and to-the-point.
-Stephen
Robert, until your lecture, I didn’t know enough about “religious terminology” to know that I was using it. I won’t make that mistake in the future.
Bill Maher’s RELIGULOUS Hits The Nail on the Head!
Oct 2nd, 2008 Humorous Comedian Bill Maher’s New Movie Is Full of Laughs.
By Dr. Ted Baehr, Publisher, and Dr. Tom Snyder, Editor
Religulous, comedian Bill Maher’s insightful look at Christianity and religion, is full of truths, facts, and logic. It’s a tremendous documentary that will win the hearts and minds of the average American. It is also very well researched and argued.
Mr. Maher visits a small trucker chapel and starts questioning the pastor and a small group of men about their Christian faith. Though one man angrily stalks out, the others do a good job of answering most of Maher’s questions, then pray to God with him that God will answer all his questions. After the prayer, Maher thanks them for being “Christ-like” instead of acting like “Christians.” An important distinction!
The rest of the documentary is filled with lighter moments.
Finally, at the end of the movie, Maher launches into a diatribe comparing all religious leaders and believers, including President George Bush, to allegedly Muslim terrorists. After making that accurate statement, Maher rightly denounces people of faith for being too certain and too judgmental. He then tells them that it is actually more “humble” to acknowledge doubts and belief in God and religion, like he does. Amen!
Maher contends during the movie that the Book of Genesis teaches that a snake talks with Eve, that the Bible never teaches original sin, and that Jesus Christ never promised his followers clothes, shelter and food. All of this is true. I mean, a talking snake? How lame is THAT?
As Chapter 28 of Ezekiel and Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 make clear, the talking “serpent” in Chapter 3 of Genesis is actually Satan, or the Devil, a fallen angel who tempts all people to rebel against God, including Adam and Eve. We will call this “fucking dumb explanation #1” Thus, either this fallen angel miraculously took on the form of some kind of serpent. Or, some words in Genesis must be interpreted completely symbolically or figuratively (but still literally)(say fucking WHAT?), as a symbolic or metaphorical comparison of Satan to the deceit and wickedness of a serpent with a forked tongue. “Fucking dumb explanation #2”
Then, Maher claims that the virgin birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are just legends that Christians borrowed from earlier pagan religions. As examples, he cites the Hindu worship of the god Krishna, the Egyptian god Horus who is the son of Isis and Osiris, and the Greco-Roman worship of the god Mithra. Christianity is busted!
These truths from Bill Maher are amazing enough. What’s perhaps even more heartwarming is that Maher gets some help from Father George Coyne, Director Emeritus of the Vatican Observatory. At one point in the movie, Coyne tells Maher that some of the documents in the New Testament were written 200 years after Jesus Christ’s death. Absolutely true!
Throughout Religulous, Maher constantly exposes the warped and ridiculous theology of the Bible and of Christianity by exposing the Bible and Christian theology in the most sensible, logical ways imaginable. For example, according to him, all Bible-believing Evangelical Christians are stupid “fundamentalists” who believe in a completely non-figurative, literal Bible that teaches the Earth is only about 5,000 years old. Unfortunately these fucktard fundamentalists are the same ones ruining America today!
Finally, Maher ridicules Christians and believers in other religions as being narrow-minded, judgmental, arrogant, irrational, full of stubborn certainty, and hypocritical. ABOUT TIME someone pointed the finger at these kooks!
It is always telling to MOVIEGUIDE® how the best films and the most important documentaries tend to slam Christianity, as did JESUS CAMP and ou personal favorite, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Lots of slamming happened in that last one.
The more research the MOVIEGUIDE® staff conducts, and the more evidence we dig up, the more we have found that the Bible and Christianity are complete horse-shit, and all other ideologies that contradict them, or that make contrary assertions to undermine them, are right on the money. Jesus Christ is a complete fabrication. And, the Bible is indeed the “inerrant, infallible Word” of a God that doesn’t really exist.
Of course, don’t take OUR word for it. Go and do the serious research and evidence gathering on your own. Examine the biblical passages we cite and look up our sources. Then, pray to Jesus Christ that God will answer the remaining questions you may have. And see what happens. That’s right, dick-all.
http://www.petitiononline.com/e4i13a66/petition.html
I like Bill Maher, and I’m going to see the movie this weekend, so I can’t really offer an opinion on it yet. But assuming the review here is describing the movie accurately, I do take exception with one thing. Bill Maher went on “The View” and claimed that he doesn’t judge or point fingers in this film, and that he just asks questions (you can find it on YouTube). But it sounds like he is actively judging and pointing fingers throughout this film. If that’s how he wants to play it, that’s fine; I’m sure I’ll get a lot of laughs out of it. But at least have the balls to be honest about the nature of the movie. He’s set a standard where I would normally expect that much from him.
I think everyone here is trying to sound way too smart…and they’re not.
Bill Maher is a “comedian”.
This film is supposed to be “funny”.
It’s only “kinda” funny.
Who gives a flaming shit who believes in what? I wasted 32 dollars on seeing this film with a date and she won’t let me pick the film we see together anymore.
Frederick: I suppose you’re the standard of “smart,” then? Please do humor all of us idiots here. I’m sure we’ll all quickly mistake you for Einstein… especially after telling us you took a date to see “Religulous.” The fact that you found the overall message and the closing speech to be merely that of a component of comedy is a bit… well, interesting, let’s just say that.
Jon: Assuming you’ve seen the movie, hopefully you realize the movie is nowhere NEAR as “bad” as it could have been in regards to Maher’s approach. As a matter of fact, I found Maher to be quite approachable. Sure, the thought that many of those people have probably never had their faith questioned will come across as Bill being disrespectful, but that’s only if you’ve either lived under a rock or have been sheltered your whole life. Bill could have very well been MUCH more insulting. The fact that he ended up with people praying for him and hugging him and whatever else goes to show that he wasn’t nearly as offensive as has been implied by so many reviewers who have supposedly seen the movie. Nevermind the fact that some of these reviewers can’t even discern “Atheist” from “Agnostic” or “religion” from “spirituality.”
Then again, if a person seeing this movie has no interest in religion, its workings, its potential for devistation, etc., then I can see this movie coming across as nothing special or entertaining. In that case, their money really would have been much better spent elsewhere.
-Stephen
As a fellow rationaist, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I think it highlighted the extraordinarily important point, that blind faith in, what really is little more than, fairy tales that have been written and interpreted by humans, is dangerous. Why is it dangerous, because it is nearly impossible to make any blindly devoted religious person rethink ridiculous and dangerous points of view that lead to human catastrophe. For instance, the KKK’s beliefs were grounded in religion, the almost constant war surrounding the middle east is grounded in religion, the Holocaust was grounded in religion, almost every war known to man was grounded in religion. If intolerance, and hatred is what religion promotes, and justifies, it is a danger to all humanity. The biggest danger, though, is that blindly religioius people will never relinquish the ideals that have lead the world to endur so much cruelty, because they are afraid of what will happen to them in the hereafter if they accept reason and tolerance and question or reject their religious beliefs. I’m so glad this movie was made. I feel that finally someone embraces the same outlook on life that I do and I appreciate that.
There is a lot of humor and sarcasm in this movie, but Maher really has the ability to turn around and make a serious point. When I saw the movie, it was interesting to watch the crowd reaction. There was a lot of laughter at times. During the closing sequence, though, you could have heard a pin drop. I left the theater feeling somewhat disoriented and imbalanced. It’s amazing to consider how many ways a person can live a life on this planet. The segments of society that Maher examined here are unfortunately not as “fringe” as some would like to think. Maher is dead on in his final assessment. When humankind has the capability to end the world without any supernatural intervention, we’re all better off not having important decisions made by religious zealots. A certain amount of doubt is necessary for our survival.
According to Webster’s dictionary an agnostic is 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
Are God/god and religion separable or inseparable entities? If inseparable, which I consider, I’m not sure how Maher can consider himself an agnostic or some of the above posters when religion and God/god are fairy tale ideas, at least based on the broad definition.
I never get why the atheists think they’ve cornered the market on rationalism. Atheism has no more scientific grounding than theism, no greater claim to logic or illogic, and is hardly a new idea. Atheism hasn’t made one advance in the last 2,000 years. And there are plenty of rational reasons to believe that an entity - with a personality, with opinions - started all of this.
Christians (and theists in general) being in the overwhelming majority in this country, must actually be incredibly tolerant, and kind, or else they would have outlawed criticisim a long time ago.
Why, they couldn’t do that!! Free speech is protected by the constitution!! Hmm. It doesn’t have to be - remember the nuts who were talking about an amendment against flag burning a few years ago.
The atheist, not believing in an absolute right and wrong, has no place to expect anything but social Darwinism or moral relativism. Luckily, the constitution was written largely by those provincial theists who were trying to do the right thing, and has largely been venerated by successive generations of theists. Hardly the oppressive, intolerant, power mad bunch I keep reading about, like a travelling band of huns ready to sack our houses…and this is a far cry from having ‘religion forced down your throat.’
Finally, if you’re even going to talk about the possibility of God, you sort of have to acknowledge that the concept of God is rooted in the super-natural, and so capable of all sorts of surprising acts, without disrupting the idea of nature as we know it. The whole idea of somebody creating the universe is pretty mind-blowing - if that’s even something we’re debating, then parting the Red Sea seems like a non-starter, doesn’t it?
The argument that you can disprove the idea of the great flood, for instance, because there is not enough water on earth to submerge the whole world is sort of like saying you will consider the idea of dragons being real, but reject the idea that they would breathe fire. You’ve already considered the fantastic, but now will not consider the slightly-less-fantastic? You’ll discuss the possibility of aliens but won’t believe they could be telepathic because humans aren’t telepathic.
If God is real, then he could inject all sorts of things into the world (enough water to create a flood, talking snakes, etc) . I’m not even a bible literalist, but claims against the miraculous in a discussion about God seem a little nutty.
To believe in God at all is to believe in something unseen and beyond our ability to fully understand, categorize, or measure. If Maher wants to call this a ‘fairy tale’, well, I guess in some ways religion does resemble a fairy tale. Theists have rarely claimed that they could take you to meet God, or that he was anything other than something above and beyond what we see in the “natural world.”
But the reality of atoms or black holes would have seemed like fairy tales only a couple hundred years ago. They were no less real for our ignorance - we didn’t invent them in the 20th century - they didn’t appear simply because we discovered them. Are we so certain that we have measured the breadth and scope of all reality that we can say with confidence “This is the sum of everything knowable”?
DH: It’s quite simple. Religion and Spirituality are completely separate entities. Maher is not combating spirituality in this movie. Too many people (you included, it appears) do not understand the difference between spirituality and religion. This is where ignorance gets to be ridiculous. You say, “I love the moral teachings of Jesus and I see all the good that religion is doing, so… yeah, I’m a Christian.” Well, to say that you’re a Christian is to say you believe in the bible… or at least Jesus Christ. Let’s forget that Jesus’ existence is questionable (at best, he was a teacher/scholar). I’m going into territory that seems as though it’s non-applicable here, but it is. Just as Christianity comes in many flavors (Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.), so does Agnosticism. Religion and a God/Creator are absolutely separate entities. There are various religions and their different, individual God(s). Likewise, there are beliefs that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with spirituality. The rabbit hole of religion/spirituality/faith/belief/theism/deism/atheism/agnosticism/etc. goes much deeper than you could imagine right now if you currently view God and religion in a synonymous light. It’s all very interesting. I would keep on this track, but some of what I have to say applies to Cole’s post, so feel free to read on.
Cole: Do you understand the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism? Bill is not an Atheist and he alludes to that a number of times in this movie. No, he doesn’t say, “I’m Agnostic.” He says, “I don’t know what’s out there, if anything! I don’t know what happens when we die, if anything!” He is an Agnostic through and through. One of the GIANT misconceptions about this movie is that Maher is being an assbag to any and everyone who believes in God. WRONG. This movie is about when RELIGION (not spirituality) gets to be ridiculous and potentially harmful to mankind. When human beings say, “our God is coming back and it is His will that we all believe and do as he says.” Sorry, but in all of the major religions, God’s will isn’t just the happy-go-lucky teachings of Jesus Christ. The rapture/end times/whatever; there is a MAJOR concern about someone like Osama Bin Laden getting a hold of nuclear weapons and fulfilling the will of the God he believes in. Do you not see something WRONG with that? Of course you do, and it seems ridiculous to have to mention it but here is where you need to once again discern RELIGION from SPIRITUALITY.
Now, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Atheism is equally as ridiculous as much of theism, but only in the mindset of being so sure that there isn’t a greater power or God. I get it that you’re justifying theism but to say that atheism hasn’t made any advances in 2000 years is preposterous. Why? Because most Atheists use rationale and the latest in scientific findings. There are MANY Atheists and Theists alike that could stand to learn a LOT more about what they believe and why, but it seems your definition of an atheist is an inaccurate one. Simplifying matters:
Atheist: There is no greater power or God. Science proves this.
Agnostic: There could be something greater than us.
Theist: There is a Creator/God. Scientific findings can coexist with my beliefs.
In my mind, for anyone to tell me that they KNOW there is or isn’t a God is ridiculous and absolutely preposterous. You know, if you want to believe in a great flood and all of that, great, but you had might as well also throw in there that you believe homosexuals are going to hell, women are insignificant, you condone slavery, and that you think it’s alright that the God you believe in commited genocide on a number of occasions… oh, and that you think God is going to come back and torture those who don’t believe.
Maher is not combating the notion of a God or the possibility of a God, but rather, RELIGION. Yes, the bible is one big fairy tale. It’s an amalgam of previous beliefs mixed with the possibly real teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth. That’s it.
You said: “Luckily, the constitution was written largely by those provincial theists who were trying to do the right thing, and has largely been venerated by successive generations of theists. Hardly the oppressive, intolerant, power mad bunch I keep reading about, like a travelling band of huns ready to sack our houses…and this is a far cry from having ‘religion forced down your throat.’”
I would give an arm and a leg if this country was run by people with the mentality of our founding fathers. Try to put an atheistic or agnostic president in office who isn’t Christian these days and see what happens. As far as having religion forced down your throat, didn’t you also say this in the same post: “Christians (and theists in general) being in the overwhelming majority in this country…” Try being in the overwhelming minority and living in the bible belt before commenting on religion not being shoved down your throat. ‘nough said.
Again, I need to reiterate that Maher is NOT berating spirituality in this movie, but rather, RELIGION. The concept of a God or a creator is definitely rooted in the supernatural, but respect for that isn’t synonymous with the God of Christianity. One can believe in the potential of a higher power without trying to define it. Religion posits a definition and rationalization for something that should be so much greater than jealousy, genocide, hate of homosexuals, oppression of women, etc. Oh, that’s right… you’re not a bible literalist. It’s not the parting of the red sea that makes me scoff at the God of Christianity, it’s all that other literal bible stuff that most “Christians” either know nothing about or pay no attention to, hence, the creation of the new testament and redefining what used to be a very intolerable and ridiculous God. When you start throwing the trinity around, all of a sudden, all of the horrible stuff in the old testament is forgotten about and God = Jesus and who could EVER deny or question someone who taught so much and did so much for humanity!? PREPOSTEROUS!
Cole, you need to study religion a LOT more. I can tell you’re an intelligent individual but it seems your concept of God is only that of ONE God; the God of Christianity. The search for a higher power or a creator goes well beyond Religion, the bible, the bible’s miracles, etc. The bible is not the be all, end all… I mean, not even CLOSE! Well, if you’re a Christian, then it is and if you call yourself a Christian, then you need to know what you’re accepting. The God of Christianity is not as simple and nice as many Christians seem to believe. If the God of Christianity is defined in the bible, then you need to take into account every explanation and action by that God, regardless of what you take literally or merely as symbolism.
Anyway, if you want to sit here and debate over the rationale of considering the existence of a God and throwing in there all the miracles in the bible, I’d be glad to take your hand and walk you through your rationale to try to strip you of your current perception of God. Another point Bill is trying to get across is that you don’t need to call yourself a Christian simply because you’re moral and a good person. There’s a lot of bad stuff going on in the name of religion and the potential for it to overshadow all the good that has come out of religion is higher than ever. Humans are egotistical. Civilizations have risen to extreme heights and f’d up MAJORLY. Maher is saying, “WAKE UP AND REALIZE THIS!” Imagine if someone launched a nuke over here. While someone like me would realize what was going on, fanatical religious folks may feel happy and welcome death in the thought that, “this is as it is supposed to be; Jesus is back! This is the rapture!”
I wonder what the people of Hiroshima/Nagosaki thought when the A-bombs were dropped on them. I’m sure it wasn’t, “this is God’s will be done”. You said it, Cole… the majority of this country is Christianity. While they certainly aren’t the intolerant bunch you seem to think they have been portrayed as, they are enablers of something that has the potential to be very grim. Even if every Christian in the world was tolerant of all other religions, just one muslim with the desire and ability to follow their belief literally could spell absolute disaster. So… if you want to talk about lack of rationale and fairy tales, let’s start with rationale and reality.
-Stephen
DH: By the way, I didn’t mean you, specifically, when I made those comments about Jesus and the bible in response to you. I was speaking in general terms.
-Stephen
i honestly dont see why everyone cant just split their beliefs and not discuss. I am a Christian and from what I hear of this review, he is making a mockery of religion. That I do not appreciate. I believe what I want to believe and although this is a free country and he can film whatever he wishes, I do not agree with his position on making this movie. For bryan, I appreciate the fact that he accepts what people believe and just leaves it at that. It’s not that difficult people.
Kyle: You’re missing the point. While you’re busy getting all butthurt about Maher making a mockery of the major world religions (not spirituality), it is the whole “live and let live” mentality that enables those who believe YOU should die for what you believe, to continue believing as they do.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/20/europe/afghan.php <– You mean that’s tolerable? You just want to let people believe what they want while you live your happy little loving Christian life? In your eyes, I’m sure that equates to a Christian dying and going to heaven but to the eyes of the Taliban, they are pleasing their God for doing that. Take God out of the picture and what do you have? People killing people for something STUPID AND IRRATIONAL! Got that?
You call yourself a Christian, Kyle. Tell me, have you read the entire bible and questioned the passages of slavery, genocide, oppression of women, hatred of homosexuals, et al, or do you find that to be ridiculous? Have you ever questioned your belief? Have you ever found it to be completely illogical that the God you believe in is going to make non-believers suffer for “eternity” when they die while you go and paint happy little rainbows with him when YOU die? You ever wonder why a God would choose to “bless” someone you KNOW is much less deserving than the people on this earth who could TRULY use the blessings, even if they don’t “know” your God? Has the excuse, “oh, that’s just a part of God’s plan” never become just completely null and void to you with any situation?
You may say, “I don’t question God because his ways are higher.” Wrong. That’s a justification for you to not have to RATIONALIZE life and come to the realization that you very well might not mean a damn thing to a creator… and even if you did, how fair would it be to assume or believe that your God would choose someone like you to “bless” (either in life or death) over the child in a 3rd world country whose mother just watched him/her get shot and killed point-blank for no reason by Guerrillas? Or the starving children in 3rd world countries who could truly use something… ANYTHING… more than what they have? The list goes on and on and on and on. The blessings people of many religions look for are selfish and dilusions of grandeur while so many other people around this world would consider a simple piece of clothing or a glass of clean water or a bowl of rice a blessing… and that would come from another human, not your God.
I’m sorry if that comes off an exaggeration but forgive me for being a realist and keeping my eyes on this earth instead of to the heavens. Now, do I believe that all people of religion are bad and intentionally selfish? Absolutely not! I know religious folks who would do just about anything they could to help others and there is a lot of good that has come out of religion, but the time has come where the good deeds of man aren’t a justification for religion anymore. The good things that have been done in the name of religion could have very well been done in the name of philanthropists. Wow, what a concept, huh? Unfortunately, there are many BAD and EVIL things happening in the name of religion. It is those things that Bill is point out in this movie. He’s looking at people who are fully capable of being completely rational and highly intelligent and saying, “this is what you believe… really?” If you call Bill pointing out exactly what religions says as making a mockery of it, then that’s the fault of religion itself. Bill doesn’t say anything of religion in this movie that isn’t true! If you can handle that, go see it. If you can’t handle having the foundations of your belief shaken, then you just go right ahead and believe like you want to believe while you “tolerate” the beliefs of ALL others; the kind Christians you know and radical Muslims alike. I know how important self-salvation is to people like you but what I and Bill Maher would like to get people like you to realize is that you essentially believe in a God who would choose to bless a believer in blind faith over a non-believer who dedicated their life to a much greater purpose in helping humanity than simply that of self-salvation.
Indeed, it is for you exactly as you’ve stated: “…not that difficult, people.” Unfortunately, for rationalists, there are problems right here on earth that we need to work to solve that are a bit more meaningful than our self-salvation. I’m sorry, but I would rather your God bless the people of this earth who truly *NEED IT* before ever blessing someone like me who has the capability to actually do something for someone else. Unfortunately, we can sit here and debate all day long but your God isn’t going to do a damn thing for anyone, Kyle. It’s up to US to help each other. Mans inhumanity for man is unbelievable and religion is a huge enabler for it. Maybe not your little Christian churches in your home town but instead of extending your tunnel vision all the way to heaven, try looking a little closer to home by examining the big picture that exists right here on earth. Reality is difficult to grasp but God’s not helping anyone regardless of what you believe… and that’s just it; you *believe*, you don’t *know*. What we *know* is that this world goes on with all of its injustices and atrocities and while some men risk their lives to help others on this earth, many people of religion turn a blind eye to those things and brush them off as being a part of “God’s plan.”
Oh, pardon me… I mean, “Smile! Jesus loves you! God is so good! Coexist!” How DARE Bill Maher go and make a movie like this! HERESY! lol.
-Stephen
PS - I could very well be doing a lot more than I do for others on this earth, but I do make an effort within my means for my position in life and I will continue to do so as I further my understanding and knowledge of situations on this earth. God’s not going to help me, Kyle. I have to help myself. I apply that same rationale to my fellow man. God’s plan, for all I can tell, is bullshit. Sorry, but that trumps all the love your Jesus could ever give. One Jesus dies and people cry, yet tens- to hundreds-of-thousands of people die each YEAR to injustice, atrocity, poverty, etc. Quite honestly, I don’t see how anyone could call themselves a Christian while their God allows these things to happen. I know, I know… God shouldn’t come down here and do his “God magic” to make everything better, right? We’re supposed to help each other, right? Kind of a f*cked up plan of God’s, there, don’t you think? “I’ll sit here front row and watch my creation do everything from preach holier-than-thou prattle and pass offering plates for money while to kill innocent people for no reason and just leave it all on you! No intervention from me; I can exist but I’ll never actually let you know I’m here! I may bless you but NEVER anyone who doesn’t believe in me, regardless of if they’re in a locale where my text doesn’t extend! MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME, I’M GOD!” I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it. And just for the sake of mentioning it, Bill Maher’s comedy/documentary isn’t even half as berating as anything I’ve written here… but rest assured, Bill and I see eye-to-eye; Agnostics (NOT ATHEISTS) who value doubt and treasure logic and rationale. MAN is going to be the one to either HELP or DECIMATE; NOT God. Bill is saying all of this in a much nicer way.
Probably the most unprofessional documentary ever made . . .
Bill Maher is a complete idiot. What kind of moron goes into homes, businesses and places of worship only to blindside unsuspecting people who trust him to conduct a fair interview? Instead of letting them answer his pointed questions, he mocks them, tries his damnedest to make them look stupid, and attempts to destroy their faith in their god. Mostly he targets Christians, but he also takes his ignorant swipes at Muslims and Jews as well. Bill Maher is as cheap a con artist as they come. He doesn’t show the full interviews, only snippets of his hateful remarks and then he pans over to his betrayed interviewee’s dumbfounded facial expressions or includes fabricated captions just for his childish kicks. Then he manipulates his audience even more with sarcastic scenes from the Flintstones or some Hollywood movie, while piping in music to create a mood that wouldn’t otherwise exist. The very fact that one of his interviewees didn’t sock this pompous dumb ass in the jaw is proof enough that god probably does exist. I mean, the fact that he came out of it without a black eye is a miracle. What kind of UNPROFESSIONAL conducts an interview and then films himself riding in a minivan scoffing at the person he just interviewed? Please tell me, what kind of spoiled rich ass bastard goes into a church that is obviously filled with poverty stricken people who have suffered from alcoholism and abuse, and stands there on the alter making every attempt to break their faith? Who in their right mind would ever give this asshole an interview after this shameful film? I’m not devoutly religious. I guess in a way I could be considered agnostic even though I consider myself Catholic, because by birth I am Catholic. However, I was completely offended by Religulous. Why make fun of anyone’s beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are? At one point this sick son of a bitch pipes in a witches cackle when a public relationship manager approaches to stop his absurd line of questioning. Why the witches cackle, Maher? Did you think without it you would be the one looking stupid instead? If you want to see the same subject matter handled in a much more professional way, check out the movie Zeitgeist; at least there are no victims in that one. Bill Maher is simply pathetic. I felt so bad for the actor playing Jesus who Bill interviewed; Bill laughed at him and nearly had the poor guy in tears. This movie is filled with cheap shots like that. I guess Bill O’Reilly has “shut up” and Bill Maher has “that’s bullshit”. These two jerks are just two sides of the same coin. And when the rabbi began to beat Maher at his own game by not allowing Maher to interrupt him, coward Maher got up and walked away and said, “No, no, I’m out.” What an ignorant man! When Maher started making fun of Puerta Ricans (while showing clips of Scarface, a Cuban) I couldn’t believe what a racist he is. Maher gives the false impression that he is legitimate because he makes his interviewees sweat, but they are not sweating because Maher has brought up any legitimate points against their faith—they are sweating because they are torn about how to react to this completely insensitive, rude individual who seems to be asking for a knuckle sandwich every five seconds. Serious, what exactly was the point of making fun of the two brave gay Muslims who have come out of the closet? Every so-called joke in this movie has already been told in a much more tasteful way by Michael Moore and even by Borat. And Maher’s Jerry Springer style speech at the end—including 9/11 footage and nuclear bombs going off to distract us from all the ignorance—was as bad as a junior high school student’s essay copied out of an encyclopedia. It’s like Bill Maher is looking through a keyhole at a black and white world in which billions of people are wrong—but he is right.
regardless of what you say about the film, maher is right. And religious views are stupid. any of them. and there is no defence in believing in things that arent real. Just like theres no defence in believing yogurt can cure cancer. “oh its just a harmless belief”! So? Its wrong. And false belief gets in the way of truth (which is important).
The big irony of this film is that Maher, who seemingly allergic to so much stupidity, takes the all too easy approach of looking like he himself is preaching to the converted. His message or thesis is two fold that adhering to the dogma of religion is the exclusive domain of fools and that organized religion per se is, if not the root of all evil in the world, is certainly the root of all conflict. He doesn’t in any way make us better understand the curious nature and behaviour of our species but rather, like an overly zealous prosecuting attorney, presents a narrowly focused case towards delivering the inevitable guilty verdict. What I get out of his film though is that part one of his case, that organized religion as dogma is more than lame is bang on. I take issue though with his second claim that if we did away with all the superstitious foolery we might be able to evolve into a more peaceful and intelligent species. I think if one studies the history and evolution of belief systems, religion is in fact more symbolic of culture and cultural behaviours than it is an entity acting unto itself. Our tribal need to act with one set of moral and behavioural rules as righteous within our own village but then in a uniquely human contradiction strike out in the most self serving wreckless and violent ways requires a special kind of cultural institution. A special kind of cultural flip switch. Hence religion. Stealing more land, more wealth, more power and whatever else of “more” that can be gained by ill gotten means requires special blessings and approval. If we didn’t have that we wouldn’t be able to live with ourselves.
quote: “Why make fun of anyone’s beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are?”
Have you seen he is making fun of someone that believes he would won a lotery some day? etc. etc.
He is making fun because believers (religion) believe in stupid things. Example?
Jonah Live in a Fish for Three Days…
Earth is no more than 5000 years old..
The rock is from god’s paradise.
Snake that talks.
Evolution is bullshit.
The end of time is comming ( like 1999 ?)
If you die you go to heaven? ( so kill your self ? no ? why not? its a better place no?)
And i could go on and on and on… You cant make a serious discussion with someone who blindly believes things like rock came from heaven, even though we all know meteorit exists..
All who believe things like that are morons, and i would like to see you talk to people who lost their love ones how god is mercifull and all powerfull, you would be stabed to death u idiots..
HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THESE ARE ONLY STORIES NOTHING MORE?
And the most funny thing is how you people react, specialy CJ laity.. If its not true, why do you care so much ? At least you have a better place you go to when you die, others have what, hell ? You should be happy hah..
Such a good film.. good on ya bill!
Stephen,
To hate god so much, you really do not know very much do you? I have questioned my religion many times. Everything you said is nothing new to me. I did not believe in god for about 17 years, I believed everything that you were saying. I chose this path for myself because I was influenced by the people around me. Now I do not feel empty anymore. Why is it exactly that you are so worried and so worked up about what people believe aside from your own? Also, you mention that essentially churches will not help people who need it. Why do you think churches have missions to third world countries? My stepfather went to Uganda, Africa in October to help a school for a small village so that the children to get a descent education. Where is the education coming from? FROM YOUR FELLOW MAN. Stop with your own ignorance and just accept things the way they are.
God is mysterious, bottom line. Perhaps those who believe do not wish to know whether or not it can be completely and absolutely proven. Maybe its the mystery that compels us? But surely you wouldn’t think of that.
P.S. And what exactly have you done for your fellow man my dear friend? Surely you haven’t given everything to the third world countries in your perfect ego? I’m happy with my life and there is absolutely nothing you can say to turn it. I am not trying to change your happiness, now am i? Get a life.
Perhaps Mr. Maher was sometimes a bit harsh during the film and, indeed, I do not think the portrait of all the religious figures was particularly fair. However, I do not agree that the documentary is without value and do not think that there is something mysterious or profound about the way religious people behave. There is no need for Bill Maher, or anyone skeptical of religion, to have a mind open to nonsense and bigotry, hence the occurrence of the mockery that you so deplore. How open was he supposed to be toward the individual who justified the murder–and attempted murder–of abortion clinic employees? How accepting was he supposed to be toward the senator’s absurd belief in the youthful age of the world? The bible, like many other religious works, can be written off as inaccurate based on evidence gathered by empirical investigation, and Bill does nothing wrong by making a point of this very fact–even if while doing so he uses humor (it is a film after all). While I do agree that he was sometimes a bit too hostile and derisive towards certain people, I think that this fault of his pales in comparison to the viciousness of a number of religious organizations, and does not in any way diminish the thesis of the film: religion can be quite dangerous.
And he was supposed to give the people he interviewed the benefit of the doubt? Really? After many years of being exposed to religious rhetoric and practices, he still needs to act as if someone ‘might’ be right in spite of all he, and many other agnostics/atheists, have learned? As a very bible-literate atheist who has been involved with a number of religious ideas and movements throughout his life, I see no need to ‘reset’ my knowledge every time I discuss why I do not adhere to any religion (not even Buddhism, the ‘godless’ faith). I will not dumb myself down in an effort to make someone feel better about his/her beliefs; if this person wants to persuade me, then s/he better be at my level of understanding. Otherwise, only ridicule awaits.
His “sitting on the fence” is his God that he clings to, ignorant even to his lack of proof that there is no God. His Fallacy of False Cause that war stems from religion makes this film less than comedy and like mockery.
Your review is spot on.
Karina,
Great review. You’ve done a good job putting your finger on what was wrong with this film. I was hoping this film would present its thesis (which I would’ve like to have seen actually supported) and, in a mostly unbiased manner, show enough evidence through credible interviews to support that thesis. Instead we get Bill Maher scrunching his face at what the interviewees say like they’ve acquired brain injuries, and just retorting “No.” But with no counter arguments to back up his rejections. On top of that either Mayer or the film editors blatantly discredited their interviewees. In the end he never seemed to prove a convincing point, and left me feeling like I was wrongfully rooting for the loser (Maher).