Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie

[Dos Equis]

Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in.   

Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie
Friday, August 22, 2008

By Roger Friedman
AP

Bill Maher's Anti-Religion Movie

“Religion is detrimental to the progress of society.” That’s my favorite quote from Bill Maher’s often brilliant, but often unfocused “documentary,” called “Religulous.” It opens in early October right after its debut at the Toronto Film Festival.

The articulate, quick-witted comedian sets out in this film — which was supposed to have been released last Easter — to prove that line is true. Directed by Larry Charles, the man who put "Borat" together so skillfully, "Religulous" is blatant about Maher’s feelings: religion is bad. All religions are bad. They are ruining everything.

If you go for that, then "Religulous" is for you. Unlike Michael Moore, whose controversial films at least allow stories to be told, Maher is not interested in other viewpoints. Rather, "Religulous" is a long Maher spiel that pauses only to underscore his own points.

At first the film is very funny as Maher gently mocks one organized religion after another. He questions just about everything in Catholicism, even though he was raised Catholic. (His mother is Jewish, but threw it all over for the father.) Everything from the Immaculate Conception to crucifixion re-enactments are covered. By the time “Religulous” is over, the faith-seekers in the audience will have scratched Catholic off their possibilities.

Not that the other major religious groups don’t come in for razzing, either. Maher is brutal to Orthodox Jews and just as nasty to Muslims. (He interviews gay Muslims in Amsterdam, a city where he also smokes a lot of pot and finds many easy laughs.) Mormons get it, and so do Scientologists, whom Maher mocks in London’s Hyde Park.

Maher sends up everything outrageous and unusual in religion, cherry-picking the fringe elements wherever he can find them. There’s no question that he’s serious in his endeavors, and for a while following him feels like it’s going to lead somewhere.

Alas, it doesn’t. Unlike "Borat," or even a Moore film, “Religulous” is a dead end. In the last quarter, the laughs peter out as we realize the exploration is pointless. The film concludes with a long, very not funny, tedious speech by Maher — in which he rails against religion — that should clear theaters before the credits start rolling.

Right now you can see a trailer for "Religulous" on LionsGate’s Web site. Interestingly, it’s linked another site called disbelief.net. Obviously, a parody site designed just for the film, disbelief.net is registered to an unknown group in the Cayman Islands. It features the quotes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, videos from the Church of Scientology Web site and a link to a Christian yoga video collection starring (whatever happened to) ‘Northern Exposure” star Janine Turner.

“Religulous” is a tough call. Will audiences flock to theatres to see it? That depends on just how many atheists there are at the popcorn stand. Maher’s point, that the world would be a better place without any religions, that wars would be eliminated and there would be universal understanding, comes across simultaneously as utopian and cynical.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html

[mightymouse72]

Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in.   

[

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

[MCWAY]

Again, to what are these folks trying to "progress"? What grandiose goal or achievement do they have that they absolutely, positively CANNOT ACHIEVE, without the destruction of religion?

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

You took the words right out of my mouth!!! 

[Deicide]

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

If it's in the Bible it must be true.

[mightymouse72]

Again, to what are these folks trying to "progress"? What grandiose goal or achievement do they have that they absolutely, positively CANNOT ACHIEVE, without the destruction of religion?



You took the words right out of my mouth!!! 

There is nothing new with this atheism argument.  People throughout the history of time have argued against the existence of God.
With all the technological advances humans have made in relation to science within the past 100 years or so, atheist today feel they have a more superior mind than societies in past and they use the “scientific technology”  argument as their basis that they’ve “proven” there is no God. 

If it's in the Bible it must be true.

fool

[Dos Equis]

lol

[Deedee]

Another one of those atheists who can't stop talking about something he doesn't believe in.   

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408782,00.html

Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream.  Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money.  Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too.  People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.

If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate.  Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.

Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news.  Sharia law in the UK for instance.  Sunni-shiite problems.  Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.

[MCWAY]

Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream.  Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money.  Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too.  People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.

If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate.  Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.

Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news.  Sharia law in the UK for instance.  Sunni-shiite problems.  Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.

That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?

[Deedee]

That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?

Well, who are ALL these people? Most really don't care that much to tell you the truth other than how it affects their wallets and voting power. As I said, people enjoy having philosophical discussions, but I hardly think most atheists care what faith people wish to follow, as long as no one bothers them.  Islam happens to be in the news a lot for obvious reasons, so there is a reason to care there.  Otherwise, I just don't think so.  And MCWAY it isn't the atheists going door to door on Saturday mornings, annoying people at ungodly early hours with their literature. 

[MCWAY]

Well, who are ALL these people? Most really don't care that much to tell you the truth other than how it affects their wallets and voting power. As I said, people enjoy having philosophical discussions, but I hardly think most atheists care what faith people wish to follow, as long as no one bothers them.  Islam happens to be in the news a lot for obvious reasons, so there is a reason to care there.  Otherwise, I just don't think so.  And MCWAY it isn't the atheists going door to door on Saturday mornings, annoying people at ungodly early hours with their literature. 

These would be the people like Maher, who claim that man can't "progress" or "move forward", as long as people believe in a supernatural being and hold to their religious beliefs.

[Deedee]

These would be the people like Maher, who claim that man can't "progress" or "move forward", as long as people believe in a supernatural being and hold to their religious beliefs.

I would say Maher falls into the category of people who make a living from that sort of thing.  Lots of comedians poke fun at religion, at least some of the more extreme behavior, and people laugh, even some more liberal minded Christians laugh at themselves.  Jewish comedians poke fun at their own religion, or the culture of it, like crazy, even if they're believers. 

I've said it before, Christians ALSO make films and preach about the godless and there are even less reasons to do so since you're the vast majority.  You said it's because Christians are called to spread the word, so if anything, it's Christians who are intruding on the lives of others.

[Deicide]

Well, to a great extent it's an industry and both sides flourish because of it. Dawkins writes a book, then the religious scholars debate him and people lap it up like kittens 'n cream.  Then the religious scholars write books and because of the debate publicity everyone makes money.  Sometimes you have someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf get into the fray and he sells more books too.  People like to imagine and discuss where they came from. It's normal.

If Getbig represents a microcosm of real life, you can see it only gets interesting when there is discussion and debate.  Sometimes it's a little rude, but that's Getbig too. Otherwise, mostly everyone can just go to their favorite websites and read what they like. No sense in preaching to the choir.

Atheists do have some investment in what Christians do in the US because it affects political policies, and that affects all taxpayers. Almost no one can get elected without professing some faith. George W. said God told him to fight the war in the middle east. There are also world issues that require some knowledge of religion if you're going to follow the news.  Sharia law in the UK for instance.  Sunni-shiite problems.  Bosnia... blah, blah, blah.

Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you....

[MCWAY]

Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you....

Deicide wants to get married? Who says there are no such things as miracles? 

[MCWAY]

I would say Maher falls into the category of people who make a living from that sort of thing.  Lots of comedians poke fun at religion, at least some of the more extreme behavior, and people laugh, even some more liberal minded Christians laugh at themselves.  Jewish comedians poke fun at their own religion, or the culture of it, like crazy, even if they're believers. 

I've said it before, Christians ALSO make films and preach about the godless and there are even less reasons to do so since you're the vast majority.  You said it's because Christians are called to spread the word, so if anything, it's Christians who are intruding on the lives of others.

Notwithstanding the disagreement about the "intruding" part, Christians KNOW what their objectives are.

What we DON'T know is this grand objective is that folks like Maher have, and why they can’t achieve it, unless religion and belief in God are gone.

I sensed no humor in Maher’s words, when he made that statement about man progressing or being able to “move forward”.

[Deedee]

Are you sure you don't want to marry me? I'll even move back to the USA for you....

I get it now! You confoosed me yesterday. 

My heart is already enslaved to my beloved, though... 

I thought you were going through an Asian phase. 

[Deedee]

Notwithstanding the disagreement about the "intruding" part, Christians KNOW what their objectives are.

What we DON'T know is this grand objective is that folks like Maher have, and why they can’t achieve it, unless religion and belief in God are gone.

I sensed no humor in Maher’s words, when he made that statement about man progressing or being able to “move forward”.

From what I get, Maher isn't an atheist... believes in a higher being, but dislikes organized religion.  Haven't seen the flick but apparently the last part is his warning that extreme Christianity and Islam will eventually cause harm to humanity.  Guess that's his objective. To criticize, with some humor.  What were Jesus's and Martin Luther's objectives when they criticized the existing status quo?

You make too much of it. Like I said, Atheists care from a political point of view, since the religious right has enormous voting power, and (as illustrated in another thread) seem to care a great deal about a candidate's religion and will vote a certain way based solely on religious issues like abortion, homosexuality and right to pollute. Atheists care when world leaders claim that God visits them with political advice.

Aside from that, atheists couldn't care less what people believe or how they worship.

[MCWAY]

From what I get, Maher isn't an atheist... believes in a higher being, but dislikes organized religion.  Haven't seen the flick but apparently the last part is his warning that extreme Christianity and Islam will eventually cause harm to humanity.  Guess that's his objective. To criticize, with some humor.  What were Jesus's and Martin Luther's objectives when they criticized the existing status quo?

You make too much of it. Like I said, Atheists care from a political point of view, since the religious right has enormous voting power, and (as illustrated in another thread) seem to care a great deal about a candidate's religion and will vote a certain way based solely on religious issues like abortion, homosexuality and right to pollute. Atheists care when world leaders claim that God visits them with political advice.

Aside from that, atheists couldn't care less what people believe or how they worship.

Right to pollute? Where in the world did you get that? Just because the "religious right" doesn't get spun up over global warming and put exotic, spotted dodo birds, ahead of people, doesn't mean they want a "right to pollute".

Again, this goes way beyond politics. It's a factor; but, it's far from the primary reason why folks like Maher do what they do. As for the objective, I'm not talking about this film. Maher has held these views long before he ever thought about producing this flick. There is some universal objective that he (and others like him have) that they apparently can't be accomplished, without wiping out religion. I'd like to know what that is.

[Decker]

That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?

I think one would want to drive religion out of the public sphere b/c anyone not ascribing to the belief system/way of life of the religion in question is automatically of lesser standing.  Why?  B/c if the religion in question is the true way of God, then anyone not walking that path is not acting in the interests of God.  And by extension those people are either utter fools, evil or some combination of the two.

[Hedgehog]

Interesting topic for a movie. Haven't seen it yet so can't really have an opinion though. 

[Nordic Superman]

Interesting topic for a movie. Haven't seen it yet so can't really have an opinion though. 

Where the fuck have you been?

Jihadist training facilities in Pakistan or something I assume?

[big L dawg]

first off..this deedee chick has her stuff together you go girl.if i didn't believe that marriage was just another tool to get people to conform and OBEY i would marry u to.

[big L dawg]

second Mcway your mcnuts.

[MCWAY]

I think one would want to drive religion out of the public sphere b/c anyone not ascribing to the belief system/way of life of the religion in question is automatically of lesser standing.  Why?  B/c if the religion in question is the true way of God, then anyone not walking that path is not acting in the interests of God.  And by extension those people are either utter fools, evil or some combination of the two.

.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.

Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.

[big L dawg]

.....and that's exactly how certain atheists feel about religious people. And, Maher echoes that sentiment in no uncertain terms.

Again, I ask what is this lofty goal that folks like Maher want to achieve and why do they feel they CANNOT get it done, unless religion/belief in God is gone.

Mccrazy

[Straw Man]

That brings me back to my earlier question. What is this supreme goal these atheists are trying to reach and WHY do they feel they CANNOT get the job done, without people en masse abandoning their faith?

I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).

From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government.   The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy.   An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution.   If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions.  This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.

Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government.