Religulous - Bill Maher

[3-LockBox]

I looked forward to this movie for many reasons, one of them being that I am in many ways, anti-religion. Not saying I don't believe, or do believe, in one thing over another, and to a point, never feel the desire to state my religous views, and nor does Maher, only that he questions organized religion. Fine, so do I. Except here, Maher can't help reveal his one true object of worship...himself. He comes across just as smug and self-serving as the religions he attempts to scewer. Instead of a real expose of the world's religions (their differences, their similarities, their doctrines) we get Bill Maher's constant insistance that he's smarter than everyone he interviews.

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.

If you are unaware of who Maher is, and you're curious about other religions or have your own doubts about religion, this movie might work for you, provided you like your info with a generous helping of sarcasm. But in saying that, its doubtful you'll find much reason to change your mind if you are religious, and if you are religious, you already got the memo to boycott this movie anyway, so the info contained therein is inconsequential.

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo.

[RGA]

I suppose it depends on your view of Maher - I like him because well he agrees with me most of the time which probably makes him one of the smartest people in the room

Religion is about as fascinating to me as road kill. Well maybe not religion but the people who still believe in the sheer nonsense. I have not seen this film yet but I suspect it will be an attack on defenseless wits. Roger Ebert is a Catholic and he liked Religulous http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810020306/1023

If you want informative debate on religion from an Athiest see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU the fact that anyone believes in a sky God that listens to your prayers is equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy or being abducted by aliens - even though theologans like to create various sometimes well articulated red herrings and straw men.

[ForeverAutumn]

I suppose it depends on your view of Maher - I like him because well he agrees with me most of the time which probably makes him one of the smartest people in the room

Religion is about as fascinating to me as road kill. Well maybe not religion but the people who still believe in the sheer nonsense. I have not seen this film yet but I suspect it will be an attack on defenseless wits. Roger Ebert is a Catholic and he liked Religulous http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810020306/1023

If you want informative debate on religion from an Athiest see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU the fact that anyone believes in a sky God that listens to your prayers is equivalent of believing in the tooth fairy or being abducted by aliens - even though theologans like to create various sometimes well articulated red herrings and straw men.

UNLEASH THE ATHIESTS!!!

I love that line, courtesy of our good friend Trollgirl/Laz.

I'm curious to see Religulous. We'll probably rent it at some point, but I never expect much from movies like this. Bill Mahar is about as capable as presenting a documentary as Micheal Moore is. Still, I'm curious as to what this movie has to say.

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

[Feanor]

...

As a documentary, it fails. This film doesn't make anyone any smarter, in that most religious people familiar with Maher are going to avoid this film like the plague. For those of us who find this topic fascinating, it spins its wheels. Much of what's in this film can be discovered on the web, so as a form of entertainment, its somewhat redundant to those of us who've yahooed or googled this stuff years ago. He touches upon the tenants of a few religions, but only long enough for a sound bite. Everything sounds like a setup for a punchline. But even as a comedy it fails, because some of his vitriol is misplaced, and you wind feeling sorry for some of his interviewees. He does bring up some interesting points, but not enough of them. There's a few chuckle worthy moments, but Maher seems to want to make his subjects look awkward, and this comedic device fizzles after the first few times we see it. As a monument to Bill Maher's disdain for all things not Bill Maher, I suppose it works, provided you don't get his cable show, because that too, will make this film redundant.
...

FWIW: if he seems to reserve most of his venom for Christianity, take it with a grain of salt - he obviously got the Rushdie memo.

3LB, great review. Thanks to it, I'll drop Religulous down a few positions on my Zip.ca list. Nevertheless anything that makes fun of religion can't be all bad. Sarcasms works for me too in this context.

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

[Auricauricle]

What a shame… When this movie came out, I really thought that Maher had really, actually located the pulse to this oh so sensitive matter and had proceeded to address it head on. Too bad that Maher had to, instead, use the movie as a platform for his grandstanding and preening; too bad that serious-minded people of deep feeling and great intellect were reduced to objects of ridicule and derision; too bad that movie watchers will laugh the occasional uncomfortable laugh of the smug and not be provoked to actually think….

I, like you all, am not a religious person and prefer to take a spiritual path that proceeds from neither ritual nor creed; but that does not prevent me from having great respect for truly intelligent and well-meaning persons who have taken up a lifestyle that espouses such things. I’ll not lie and say that I am wholly tolerant and that I never make jokes regarding things religious, but I am cognizant of the fact that good-natured kidding and ridicule are two different things. (It sounds as though) in this movie, Maher’s usual well-liked kidding banter slipped, betraying his intent to foist his own agenda—his own religion if you prefer. Pity.

We can say all we want about religious intolerance and the history of bloodshed and violence perpetrated “in the name of God”, but I think such dialog misses the point that religion is simply a codified way of expressing one’s beliefs with people who share a similar point of view. While religion has become a very organized thing in and of itself, working its way into the fabric of our lives with intrusive urgency, I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

Some years ago, I was listening to a Bishop, who told the story of St. Thomas. While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are held up as the true accounts of Christ and His legacy, the story of St. Thomas is worth considering. Thomas' account is noteworthy not because he believed in Jesus and that He had ascended to God, but because he (Thomas) asked for proof that He did so. If you are He, Thomas said, show me your wounds.

In this, Thomas embodied a deeper faith than that that embraces tenets and credos full on. The story of Thomas shows that faith and religion are, in fact, intellectual and emanate from considered and intense searching. I suspect that any religion in its true form, without all the trappings of the "Divine" can be distilled to these fundamental "Human" beginnings. To mock these things without considered commentary on their own, considerable merit, is condescending and insulting not only to upholders of faith, but to even those of us who view such things with wary—and maybe humorous—skepticism and disdain.

[3-LockBox]

Both Maher and Michael Moore are narcissistic, but Moore plays dumb a lot to lure the interviewee into saying something stupid, or at least more than they wanted to say, while Maher is confrontational and can't wait to jump on something someone says. Moore will let people talk themselves into a corner where Mahler immediately puts people on the defensive. Its harder to feel sorry for the people in a Michael Moore interview.

[nightflier]

3LB, good analysis on the Maher-Moore differences. Never thought of it that way. I happen to like any movie/show that brings a good deal of humor, and both Maher and Moore do that in spades. Maher's sparring with Coulter is priceless and so is Moore's clip of Bush talking about Terrorism before taking that swing. Different styles but good laughs.

I had a lot of hopes for Religulous, even if I'm still having trouble pronouncing it. I'll still rent it, though, but I think W is going to come first. Josh Brolin is supposed to be great in it and he was pretty good in NCFOM, so it can't be that bad.

[RoadRunner6]

Reglion might be acceptable as a personal delusion, but when it comes to politics it is a great deal of what's wrong with the world.

Amen, hallelujah! Feanor sums up my exact fealings in one succinct but profound statement.

RR6 (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa)

[Auricauricle]

I have no reservations about seeing that religion and politics are very possibly opposite sides of the same coin...I just think that sometimes people knock other folks' faith without giving credit to the person for their rationale for doing so. Even if it is miguided, backasswards and amoral!

[3-LockBox]

I would like to propose that religious things, in true form and essence, could be distilled to matters of faith, not zeal.

That'd be great if you could swing it...but you'd have to kill a whole lot of people first...

just kidding of course, but there is a reason religion isn't perfect...its run by greedy control freaks.

[Auricauricle]

Hey if you wanna get rich, there are few better ways to do it. Just ask Jim Baker, Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jim Jones and Osama Bin Laden all about it....

Wait a dern minute....Did I say Osama Bi....? What's wrong with me??

[RGA]

RGA, I really want to watch that You Tube vid. But at 37 minutes it's not something that I can do at work. I'll have to try to find a half hour to put aside at home for it.

Part two is an 1 hour and 10 minutes. It's well worth watching especially when the Liberty University folks start asking questions. The bit where that university is revealed to have 3000 year old dinosaur bones and Dawkins' reply is rather hilarious.

[Auricauricle]

Thing I wanna know is, is it possible to come up with a religion without the prophet? Can we come up with a way of oraganizing ourselves around a body of faith without a human or other vehicle? Oh, that's spirituality. Never mind....

[RoadRunner6]

Faith is the whole problem in a nutshell. There is no proof at all of the major writings and dogma of any religion. One is told to accept all on faith. That in itself disproves the basis of Christianity and all other religions.

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

[nightflier]

Could you imagine if we were asked to accept all scientific discoveries as a matter of faith.

...isn't that what intelligent design is all about? Or was it the primary mover? No wait, was it that than which nothing greater can be thought? ...I don't know what to believe anymore.

[ForeverAutumn]

You may all worship me.

[nightflier]

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

[dean_martin]

I often watch Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO for the political analysis and "new rules" is a funny bit, but I've often turned the channel when he starts his anti-religion rants because they're full of hatred. I think he can make the same points in a more civil manner. When he goes into his anti-religious rants, he's as zealous as those he criticizes. He seems to take it personally rather than methodically exposing idiocy, hypocrisy, etc.

[ForeverAutumn]

Yeah but don't you worship cats? That would put us pretty low on the hierarchy.

I also worship ferrets and guinea pigs.

[Feanor]

Thing I wanna know is, is it possible to come up with a religion without the prophet? Can we come up with a way of oraganizing ourselves around a body of faith without a human or other vehicle? Oh, that's spirituality. Never mind....

Faith? The only thing I believe in is skepticism.

[Auricauricle]

Heh heh heh....You wanna toga with that, Socrates?

[RGA]

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.

There are good people and bad people of any religion or non religion. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.

Usually their arguments turn into red herrings like Stalin was an atheist or that atheists ar too mean to religious people. A defense of that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEMV...eature=related

[Feanor]

If you're an atheist then it's sometimes not to be argumentative because you are discussing with people who may be bright but have decided to compartmentalize their brain on the matter. And then it is said we must be more respectful of their faith. But their faith is dangerous whether they know it or not.
...

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

[ForeverAutumn]

... is that religous faith seems so obviously ridiculous: unsupported by evidence, dogmatic, delusional, intolerant, hypocritical, and often self-contradictory. How do you have patience with this? How do you not mock it?

Very well said.

[3-LockBox]

Even science has its limitations. While every religion has an origin story or a Genesis if you will, science's origin story is no less a leap of faith, based on study and what few facts we have, but faith nonetheless. Genesis suggests a higher being spoke and "it was so" regarding creation, science gives us the Big Bang Theory, which also suggests 'something from nothing'. Evolution works on many levels explaining the origins of things, until you explain just how perfectly simple cells that could reproduce independantly of anything decided to 'become' male and female, for some reason, and still evolve at the same rate so as to propigate the wide variety of sepcies we have now, perfectly. Science wants us to believe in both 'random' and 'selection' with regards to life. It could make sense, but it is at times, convenient.