free counter with statistics Religulous | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

081002religulous.jpg

Jesus Is Just Alright With Me


Religulous / Brian Prisco

Film Reviews | October 7, 2008 | Comments (176)


Bill Maher just doesn’t know. And that’s why Religulous is less of a documentary and more of an interactive concert film where he goes around belittling religious zealots in the effort of spreading the gospel of purported truth. He spends the entire movie berating his interviewees with a smug sense of superiority without once listening to them. Essentially, his message is that religions are dangerous and stupid because people use them not as a crutch, but as a cannon, even though most of their arguments for doing so are nothing more than smoke and bullshit. To prove this, Maher travels around the world making evangelicals foolishly stutter while sneering at them. Is it funny? Oh, undoubtedly. Bill Maher is a comedian, a snide observer who’s able to smirk and deride intellectually like Dennis Miller without the thesaurus regurgitation and feathered Heather Locklear hair. But a pack of putdowns cleverly packaged with one final arrogant monologue doesn’t make you a documentarian. It makes you Michael Moore with a shave and a Slim-Fast.

The movie starts off promising with Maher discussing rationally his notion of doubt. Maher plays himself off as agnostic, a person who just doesn’t know if there’s a God. From this point it seems like the movie is going to be him going around asking probing questions of people of faith. It quickly devolves into Maher finding anyone who’ll talk to him and then hitting them with snarky questions and making pithy responses over their stammering. There’s no thoughtful debate on evolution. It’s more or less Maher finding someone who’s a staunch creationist who sits slackjawed while he says, “You really believe that? Really? You’re that stupid? Wow.”

Maher’s debate partners were poor representations of their religions. It’s Butterbean taking all comers. He finds any dupe who has a religious credential, and then uses a series of blue index cards to tear them apart. He has a conversation about scripture and spirituality with Jesus at TBN’s “The Holy Land Experience” in Orlando, where for $30 you too can take part in the crucifixion. This guy isn’t a scholarly theologian, he’s a fucking summer stock reject trying to pay for his shitty studio apartment by growing out a beard and long hair. Why doesn’t he go down the street to Walt Disney World and ask one of the guys in the Mickey Mouse suit his take on Walt Disney’s rampant anti-Semitism? But this is Maher’s worthy opponent, because no one of any import will speak to him. Most of his interview victims will start to mutter, “Look I don’t know what your documentary is about, but…” So it’s not even like these second tier mooks even know Maher has come to discuss religion. Because he hasn’t. He just wants to get a laugh out of mocking the stupidity of fundamentalism by reheating leftovers from his comedy bits in the 1990s.

Case in point: He decides to do a segment on how several fundamentalist Christian groups hate homosexuality. He cues up a bunch of stock footage of protest groups with signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Matt Shepard Burn In Hell.” Then he goes and has a sit down with an ex-gay minister. Maher proceeds not to foster any sort of discussion about how the minister was converted, but instead asks him about the gay gene and repeating the point that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus speak against homosexuality. All of which has been said before, and better, by other filmmakers. The minister mostly sweats and gives awkward responses that amount to, “Well, I think it’s wrong.” At the end of the interview, Maher gives the minister a hug and makes a crude erection joke. He doesn’t go and find a gay priest and ask him how hard it was to come out in a faith that doesn’t uniformly support his lifestyle. He doesn’t go after Fred Phelps or anyone from his church. He finds some poor dope and mocks him.

Maher’s thesis isn’t about trying to encourage doubt. It’s that all religions are fundamentally wrong and idiotic. He presents it with this air of pomposity. Even when someone makes a point, he snorts and chuckles. Maher knows he’s preaching to the choir, and he loves every minute of it. The message of the movie is that he’s essentially nudge nudge, wink winking everyone in the audience. Boy aren’t we so much better than these rubes? Aren’t they so foolish? But he’s not giving us food for thought. He’s not making anyone think. He’s doing exactly what he accuses mainstream religion of doing: regurgitating ideas for a bunch of sheep who nod and bleat and clap. He’s standing on his pulpit shouting, “Religion’s a bunch of bullshit! People who have faith are retards! Can I get an Amen? Well, fuck you and your AMEN! I’m better than you!” I thought the whole glory of being intellectually superior to stupid people is that you don’t have to rub their face in it.

Maher would have been better off calling the movie Maher-velous, because that seems to be the overriding message of the film. I’m Bill Maher, and I’m so much fucking smarter than them, right? Maher’s in every frame of the film, and he will not let you once forget he’s the leader of this flock. If you like your arrogant smarmy opinions served up to you with a side of smug self-assuredness, this is your film. And let’s face it if you’re reading Pajiba, cocksure-smug-proselytizing is your daily bread and fucking butter.

Which is not to say it’s an unentertaining film. As I said, it’s fucking hilarious. Larry Charles directed Borat, which is essentially the same movie, only it doesn’t pretend to be rote fact and it contains about 65 percent less sweaty man ass. The editing is a thing of unparalleled beauty and often has better comic timing than Maher. Subtitles and captions will pop up, skewering the interview subject, pointing out inconsistencies and scoring more points than any of Maher’s raised eyebrows or rolled eyes. Snippets of old school religious epics and televangelism are interspersed with the different conversations. While Maher gets in the occasional zinger, it’s the editing that’s the real comedian.

The most disappointing part of the movie is that Maher’s better than this. I expected more than just listing the tenets of Scientology and Mormonism and laughing about them. For fuck’s sake, “South Park’s” already done it better than anyone can ever hope to do. The problem with the movie is the same problem with Bill Maher’s television shows. While the format is engrossing and the conversations can be intriguing, they never get anywhere. It’s mostly just half-informed people spouting seven or eight facts they’ve memorized at the loudest volume they can without actually creating a genuine debate. Even then, the short format show is framed with Bill Maher’s monologues. We don’t even get an hour of interesting conversation, just 15 minutes sandwiched between Maher repeating arguments we’ve heard, only couched to get a chuckle.

If Maher had actually set out to ask questions and legitimately get answers, this would have been an amazing film. It probably wouldn’t have been a comedy, but it would have gotten a better message across. When we finally reach his self-serving and ill-informed agenda at the end of the film, his message is not of doubt. He spends the last ten minutes marching around Megiddo (the proposed site of Armageddon) in a suit that makes him look like the maitre’d in Hell. He demands atheists and those with doubt stand up and fight back. Essentially, he’s calling out for a wave of fundamentalist agnosticism, which is astoundingly dumber than anything else put forth in the movie. He expects rallying cries of “I REALLY don’t know if there’s a God!” He even goes so far as to make the point if he, Bill Maher, doesn’t know if there’s a God than there is no fucking way YOU do, because he’s fifty times smarter than you. He means YOU the audience watching the movie, not the fundamentalist zealots. And he STILL got rousing applause at the conclusion.

Any fundamentalist, no matter what religion, tends to come off as an asshole. If you refuse to accept other people’s beliefs, if you plug up your ears and don’t listen, you’re going to come across as foolish. Even if the justification for this is “La-la-la-It’s-Not-In-The-Bible” or calling out someone for believing a book of stories, you look like a jerk. Something that’s been brought up in many texts, and most effectively in Christopher Moore’s Lamb, is the theory that Jesus spent the lost years of his life studying other religions. Jesus supposedly traveled to the Far East and learned Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. The book does not say he became any of these religions. It’s that he went to the different faiths, found stuff that interested him, and worked it into his own beliefs. That’s what religion should be. It’s like a vacation buffet in an exotic city. You go around and try everything, and throw away the stuff that’s distasteful to you. The hard part is there is no name for whatever you come up with. People are conditioned to ally ourselves with a tribe. To point out all the individual beliefs could get someone ostracized, or stoned, or hammered to a big T. It’s so much easier to just join a team, no matter what they represent. It’s why we have a two party system in America.

Maher is right when he says religion is dangerous. It’s dangerous because bad people are allowed to speak in its name and act as the spokesperson. The problem with Maher is that he’s just as guilty. He’s preaching the same message, in the same close-minded way, and being just as big a prick. Granted, he doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal, and he isn’t advocating genocide or concentration camps for homosexuals (which they already have, it’s called The Bravo Network). People aren’t going to change someone’s mind by being hateful and mocking them. There’s nothing wrong with believing in God, or Mohammed, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a blue-tinted cephalopod with one giant anime eye. The problem is when we let other people speak for us, and don’t stand up to them when we disagree. There’s nothing wrong with believing in something so strongly you’re willing to die for your cause. It’s when people start killing other people who disagree with them that problems occur. But why am I telling you this? You already know that. You don’t need me or Bill Maher to tell you that. The people who do need to know that aren’t going to watch this movie or read this website or stop preaching hate. There will always be assholes in the world, friends. It’s up to us to learn how to fight them without becoming one ourselves. That’s makes us just as bad. And we’re better than that. Cause I heard about it from people who read it in a book sometime once.

Brian Prisco is a warrior-poet from the valley of North Hollywood, by way of Philadelphia. He wastes most of his life in desk jobs, biding his time until he finally becomes an actor, a writer, or cannon fodder in the inevitable zombie invasion. He can be found shaking his fist and angrily shouting at clouds on his blog, The Gospel According to Prisco.


FX renews Sons of Anarchy | Pajiba Love 10/07/08



Comments

really solid review and you made some good points as well.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 10:11 AM

Brilliant as always Prisco...

But maybe the people would receive messages like, "Hey, don't hurt people because they're different from you," if it wasn't prefaced with, "HEY STUPID!"

*sigh* But I feel like maybe I should just ctrl+v the comments from the review of that Kirk Cameron fireman movie. The folks there were awesome.

Posted by: Kayanne at October 7, 2008 10:17 AM

Thank you. I saw Maher on the Daily Show promoting this film as a thoughtful probe into religion which promised only to ask questions, not to pass judgment. Of course he explained this while deriding Christianity and explicitly mocking its followers.
I'm glad to see the overall film confirms his toolishness.

Posted by: Jim at October 7, 2008 10:20 AM

I'm no fan of organized religion, but I don't like Maher either. I'll be sitting this one out.

Posted by: telesilla at October 7, 2008 10:21 AM

What a douche.

Posted by: Jorp at October 7, 2008 10:23 AM

I do watch Real Time whenever I can catch it, and I find it therapeutic. Sure, The Daily Show has the same effect to some extent, but when Jon can't simply just call someone a stupid fucking bimbo, Bill picks up where he leaves off...it's good to see some left-leaning national television with fangs.

Posted by: aidan at October 7, 2008 10:25 AM

I love this review and I agree with dylanj; you made excellent points.

And THANK YOU for pointing out what a smug jerk Maher is. He's made a living of rolling his eyes and half-smirking.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 10:25 AM

I love that you point out that he is essentially arguing from the same place as fundamentalists. I think he feels like as long as he's saying "I don't know what happens" that means that he's being open-minded to all possibilities when he's really saying "I don't know what happens and unless you take that stance as well then you're a moron." It's not that I don't mostly agree with you Mr. Maher, I just think you're a dick.

Posted by: becks at October 7, 2008 10:26 AM

I'm actually pretty disappointed that this movie turned out to be just as I expected it to be. After Maher's appearance on the Daily Show, I thought it might be a decent, watchable film a la For The Bible Tells Me So but once again it seems Maher is too busy massaging his own nuts to bother paying attention to anyone else.

Posted by: Renee at October 7, 2008 10:28 AM

Here is something I've never understood about Maher and his kind- they are firmly into the left side of american life where tolerance and accepting others is the "golden rule" yet they have no tolerance and show no understanding or respect to anyone who isnt as liberal as they are. I personally believe in jesus but i really dont give a shit if other people dont nor do I have any desire to try and show them why I am "right". Its a private personal choice and one that Maher apparently thinks nobody should ever make and if they do they should be dismissed as gun hugging retards

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 10:29 AM

and should probably add that i am also on the left side but just not so far left that I hate and demonize the rest of the country who doesnt think exactly the way i do.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 10:31 AM

Prisco, that was a seriously awesome piece of writing. I tip my hat to you, sir. (also, Kayanne--"maybe the people would receive messages like, "Hey, don't hurt people because they're different from you," if it wasn't prefaced with, "HEY STUPID!"": Heehee, beautifully put, chickie!)

Guh, who know there was such a thing as "fundamentalist agnostics"?! Athiests, sure--they at least have a firm belief that there's no big guy in the sky. But how can an agnostic be so absurdly certain of their uncertainty? I consider myself agnostic, and while I'm not ashamed to admit that I can't decide what I believe, I don't see how it's superior to having a firm belief in something bigger than ourselves (so long as it's not hate-filled or blind sheepery).

Posted by: meaux at October 7, 2008 10:37 AM

Actually, there are warnings regarding homosexuality in the New Testament. It's in Romans (1), I Corinthians (6), I Timothy (1) and also in Matthew, John and Jude. Which Bill would have known if his mind were truly open to tolerance of other ideas. What's being portrayed in his "documentary" are two opposite sides of the same evil coin - judgement of others and intolerance. He calls himself a learned man, but clearly, he is not. He doesn't even seem to know why he believes the way he does. The zealots don't either. They are far more alike than would make either comfortable if they took the time to really see others and thenselves as human beings.

I'll stop ranting now...

Posted by: Fluffy T at October 7, 2008 10:41 AM

Thanks for reviewing this with a clear eye, Prisco. Maher is going for the cheap shot here; it's always easy to pick on the wingnuts and the wackos who are so devastatingly earnest and emotional in their convictions.

I read an interview with director Larry Charles where he defended the fact that they interview mostly fringe extremists. He was all, "Well we tried to get an audience with the Pope, but he wouldn't return our calls. Hardy, har, har." Dude, you don't have to go all the way to the Pope to get a levelheaded view of Christianity.

Posted by: Alabamapink at October 7, 2008 10:44 AM

I think even Bill Maher would like this review because it talks a lot about Bill Maher.

Posted by: Feylin at October 7, 2008 10:49 AM

Thank you for mentioning Lamb. Despite sixteen years of Catholic school and having a bishop as an uncle, Lamb and Dogma are still the foremost influences on my faith.

Also, they don't make me feel guilty for saying "fuck".

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at October 7, 2008 10:51 AM

"Maher is right when he says religion is dangerous."

Yeah, yeah, keep throwing the Crusades back at us (modern-day Crusades, too).

Granted there's no shortage of easy targets among religious people for folks of Maher's mindset to lampoon and mock and paint with a broad brush.

The real problem is, you willfully have to ignore the great good many religious people do and have done, quietly, for the poor and downtrodden of the world. You have to ignore the money and donated goods raised for victims of disasters, the houses built, the food distributed, the knowledge shared, the doctoring done, the comfort given. In short, you have to ignore all the people who try to lead their lives the way Jesus (and the dieties of other faiths) tells them they should, who put their money (and their time) where their mouths are. You just have to pretend none of that happens.

These are not necessarily people of great intellect. They probably can't give you rational reasons for doing what they do or thinking what they think. A preacher I used to know would say, "I'm just dumb enough to believe it."

To someone determined not to believe, none of it will ever make much sense. I'm a believer and it barely makes sense to me.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 7, 2008 10:51 AM

And I totally closed off the italics; the website is lying.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at October 7, 2008 10:52 AM

Good review! I got the same impression from some of the press Maher's doing and some snippets from the movie. I wondered myself why he was interviewing "Jesus" from that Bible park thingy and not someone who was really worth an interview that could add something to the discussion. But then, like you said, it most likely wouldn't be a comedy.
I'm a bit biased towards this movie though since I can't f-ing stand Bill Maher.

Posted by: Sarah C at October 7, 2008 10:54 AM

bucdaddy, that was awesome.

Posted by: Kayanne at October 7, 2008 10:54 AM

Well said bucdaddy. Well said.

Posted by: Alabamapink at October 7, 2008 10:56 AM

Prisco,

A couple of things. First, your obvious dislike of Maher and the fact that you don't seem to agree with agnosticism/aetheism (I assume, yes, assume, you believe in God) has, I think, coloured every aspect of your review.

It seems you were looking for a sober, thoughtful documentary on the dangers of religious fundamentalism. Maher isn't Prof. Richard Dawkins, or Chris Hitchens, or Sam Harris. He's a comedian. A comedian. This is why both the movie and his TV show are funny first, (semi-, quasi-) informative second.

There's no doubt that he seriously thinks religion can be a very dangerous thing and that this IS something to be taken seriously, but, again, the film is first and foremost a comedy. Without trying to sound condescending, I think your review missed the point, clouded as it was by your dislike of Maher.

I honestly think that Maher IS smarter than the foolish fundamentalists he interviews in the movie. Shit. I think I'M smarter than them if they believe that crap. His views were well-known and clear before he made the movie. Don't then be shocked if he comes off as sounding snarky - you already knew that!

I think he's done a good thing simply by bringing the issue into the spotlight. I don't necessarily think you're dumb if you believe in God (though that is the reason some of the time. Most of the time, I think religious people just refuse [for whatever reason, and the reasons are too numerous to go into here] to look facts in the face), but I think that the more informed a person is on the pros and cons of believing in any sort of religion, the more people will realise what a load of bollocks it all is!

I think that in any other western country, this movie wouldn't be controversial at all. Only in bible-bashing America (and yes, I will talk shit about some of the stupid things Americans believe in - guns? religion? Please. Seeing as I was born in the US and am serving in the US military, I believe [no, I know] I have the right [which in itself is another thing that Americans love to take umbrage over - "WE can criticise our country, but you fucking foreigners can't!"]).

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 10:58 AM

i think the point boogs is that anyone can make your point look better by picking out the weak to interview. I could stroll down my campus right now and find some hipster douchebag interview him and make everything he stands for looking crazy. If Maher was serious he could have can heads up vs some serious scholars who believe (yes they do exist)

picking on the guy playing jesus at some crazy ass park is clubbing a baby seal on tv

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 11:07 AM

Again, dylanj, Maher is a comedian and this film is a comedy. The people I mentioned, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al., can do (and have done and are doing) the serious debating on the issue.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 11:09 AM

@boogs

Looks like SOMEBODY won't be getting comment of the week. /singsong

Posted by: Kayanne at October 7, 2008 11:12 AM

People can believe all sorts of unprovable things or worship whatever imaginary creature in the sky (or ground) they like, so long as they don't use those beliefs as a justification to invade my freedom. Which is why I'd rather live in a country filled with Christian libertarians than secular socialists. It's not what they believe, it's what they are willing to do to other people because of their beliefs.
Except Scientologists, their canon is just too stupid for words and should be mocked relentlessly, even if they harm no one.

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 11:12 AM

then its a comedy is very bad taste. its "fireproof" for the other side.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 11:14 AM

Great interview Prisco. You're right, no one can top South Park on this one. They were completely right. People shouldn't rely on -isms not because they are dangerous in themselves, but because, simply put, we're just too stupid to use them the way we should. Fact of the matter is, all religions are about love, but how many religious figures do we see actually acting out of love? Alabama's right, the most level headed view of a religion you can get is from one of its common followers, real people who live in the real world.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 7, 2008 11:19 AM

Bill Maher's funny sometimes. His New Rules are a good laugh, and he has a good rant now and then. But his anti-religion stuff is just tired and boring. Ok, so you think they're beliefs are dumb. That's hardly a basis for an entire film.

Posted by: chenry at October 7, 2008 11:25 AM

So are you saying that the Christian right is protecting me from Communist infiltration,
Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion
and the international Communist conspiracy to sap
and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?

I haven't really noticed any godless socialists dictating my freedom or lack thereof lately, if I'm following you correctly.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 11:26 AM

Excellent review, Prisco. This is exactly the problem I have with almost anything that attacks religion - it's easy to mock a group of people if you only speak to the stupidest extremists. Anyway, I don't have time to go into my detailed religious (or lack of religious) views, but I just wanted to add in mine as a voice of appreciation for your thoughtful and engaging review.

Posted by: dsbs at October 7, 2008 11:28 AM

boogs, I am an atheist and from what I've seen of Maher, this review seems spot on.

Bill Maher may be a comedian, but if he wants this issue to be taken seriously, he has to at least pretend to give it some thought. It's very easy to make a movie going "HUR HUR RELIGION IS RETARDED", and I think that's an easy way out. Berating these people is like punching kittens; it's easy and fun but at the end of the day it doesn't really get you anywhere.

I was born in the US and I'm (kinda sorta not really) in the military as well. I think I have the right to criticize what other Americans think as well, but I at least try to remember that everybody here has the right to believe in whatever they want (even if its wrong).

Posted by: Klams at October 7, 2008 11:34 AM

"So are you saying that the Christian right is protecting me from Communist infiltration,
Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion
and the international Communist conspiracy to sap
and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids?

I haven't really noticed any godless socialists dictating my freedom or lack thereof lately, if I'm following you correctly."

Thanks, Jay. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thought what Lane Honda was saying was a bit rich/weird/kind of dumb (sorry, Lane Honda.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 11:38 AM

Did Mr. Maher produce two movies under this title, released the exact same weekend? Or am I the only one who saw this movie without first saying a quick prayer that God wouldn't get mad at me for watching it? I found it to be exactly the inquisitive, but funny docu that he posited it was on the Daily Show (great interview by the way).

Was he belittling the semi-truck congregation when he asked them serious questions that they listened to as fairly as he did their responses? Was he belittling the former Mormons who were only telling the truth they had learned by being raised Mormon? I get that this movie will rub a lot of people the wrong way because it portrays Christianity (and the other religions) as belonging to the meek, of which the retarded make up a large portion. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Bill Maher might be snarky, he might be aloof, but he's also quite brilliant, and this movie is very well done. The difference between this and a Michael Moore doc is the fact that this one is watchable. He's not badgering anyone, not playing "gotcha", and most of all he's giving everyone he interviews respect and letting them out themselves. I honestly feel like we watched Bizarro-level images of the same movie here, Mr. Prisco, and judging from the level of commenters here compared to the paltry box office numbers, most of them were watching Chihuahua images of this film.

Posted by: tdehr at October 7, 2008 11:39 AM

You have my gratitude for bailing me out of seeing this just to confirm that this movie is nothing more than contemptuous excuses for comedic punches. How is believing in doubt supposed to be less ridiculous than anything else exactly?

Posted by: Sunsneezer at October 7, 2008 11:41 AM

I have to wonder about the timing of this release too, a month before a presidential election. Is that intentional? If so, what is the purpose? To try to cow religious people into not standing up for what they believe?

Look, many of the people Maher mocks have been taught since they were little children: "Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake." They expect to be scorned and mocked; to them it means Jesus was right. So movies like this play right into their put-upon mindset.

Problem for folks on the Left like Maher is, religious people have discovered they don't have to sit back and take it. They've found a perfectly legal and justifiable way to get back at the people they think are persecuting them: They vote.

So the supreme irony is, if McCain/Palin wins by a hair, you might be able to thank Bill Maher.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Jay/boogs,

What's the difference between being forced to work on a plantation 40% of the time, and having 40% of the value you receive from your labor being taken from you against your will? Does it matter if the people doing the taking claim its necessary in order to help others?
But really, that's getting into things not related to the review and topic at hand. Let's just say you don't need to believe in God to have a religion. And you don't need to actually believe in hell to send plenty of people there based on your good intentions of how the world should be.

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 11:46 AM

You keep threatening that, seemingly to quiet liberals, but haven't they been voting? Isn't that how they've been in control of the country for so long whilst always proclaiming that they're playing defense?

I don't mean to be belligerent but I'm not quite seeing the sense there.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Again, dylanj, Maher is a comedian and this film is a comedy. The people I mentioned, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al., can do (and have done and are doing) the serious debating on the issue.

Then why bother even putting on the pretense of it being a documentary? Even Borat was clearly shown to be a comedy, not an actual examination of a immigrant's first steps in America. But Maher has been promoting this as a semi-serious examination of faith. And just because it is a comedy doesn't mean it can't be educational and thought-provoking. If that was the case, then nobody can bitch about the next Parody Movie that comes out.

My problem with this and similar works (even those from the likes of "serious" critics like Dawkins) is that, yes, there are stupid people who follow religion. But their argument is that the religion itself is the source of the stupidity. As if only the religion was removed, these folks would suddenly shoot up 50 IQ points.

The kinds of people they mock (and almost invariably use to represent ALL peoples of any faith) are more than likely just stupid period; the religion just turns their stupidity to a certain direction. The fact that so many of them don't even have a basic understanding of the faith they purport to believe in should be proof of that.

Faith doesn't mean blind obedience and blissful ignorance. Faith needs doubt to exist, and doubt comes from accepting contradictory evidence. So these zealots can't even claim to be faithful; all they are doing is blaming their stupidity on their religion instead of taking responsibility and trying to learn a thing or two.

This is pretty much a case of Maher picking on a bunch of retards. Yep, I said it. He was poking and prodding these folks and laughing at the whatever they said in response. And I am supposed to find that funny?

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 11:52 AM

Yes but, where's this Stalinist America keeping the Christians down located on the map? I know that's the "Left Behind" prequels plot, but you're confusing me.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 11:53 AM

Prisco, you just summed up my struggles with Faith/Doubt, spiritual classification (and whether its even necessary), Fundamentalists on BOTH sides of the faith issue, and why Bill Maher annoys me. All in one review.

I've always liked your writing, but now I really want to be your friend as well.

Posted by: ShinyKate at October 7, 2008 11:58 AM

That's what religion should be. It's like a vacation buffet in an exotic city. You go around and try everything, and throw away the stuff that's distasteful to you. The hard part is there is no name for whatever you come up with

Actually, that pretty much describes Unitarian/Universalism, as practiced most places. Check it out.

They even have a class called "Building Your Own Theology" and it's OK if your answer is "I don't have one"

Posted by: Drake at October 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Interesting, thoughtful review, Brian. Thanks.

As for what Lane Honda said, I think some of you may have misinterpreted her comment. I think she was saying that if she had to choose between being governed by libertarian fundamentalists and secular socialists, she'd choose the fundamentalists. She was NOT saying that all atheists or agnostics are socialists, nor was she saying that all religious folks are libertarians. Her point was that she didn't care what people believe, so long as they keep it to themselves.

Posted by: tt_marie at October 7, 2008 12:01 PM

Seriously. About half the movie is talking to the idiots, but what exactly does everyone that's hammering that point have to say about the two people he interviewed in Rome? The thoughtful and discerning Roman Catholics that agreed with about everything Mr. Maher said? ADDRESS THAT, ASS HOLES. I am going to make a documentary about the reaction to this documentary, and interview only the people who won't do so. Some might criticize me for that, but that's a problem for the next recursive documentary. Now I'm off to film my monologue about the dangers of reviewing a film when you had to leave every ten minutes to let the movie theater hot dog you insisted on eating rend your ass in the most Biblical sense imaginable.

Posted by: tdehr at October 7, 2008 12:03 PM

Her point was that she didn't care what people believe, so long as they keep it to themselves.

Yes, I wish more people would. I think that was Jesus' advice too, and whatever he was or is, he had good advice.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 12:03 PM

um..i agree with Lane Honda, i would rather live with Christians(or whoever) who didnt feel like they had to impose their beliefs on others than with anyone who felt the need to impose an ideology into anyone. just sayin

Posted by: VinKong at October 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Which is why I'd rather live in a country filled with Christian libertarians than secular socialists.

Posted by: Lane Honda

I live in a country that's part Catholic, part Evangelical, and part secular socialist. The former and the current president are both socialists and do not believe in God. They have not, however, tried to impose that belief on the people because they know the other 50% of the country has a religious belief.

I'm not a socialist or a communist, but I interact with them daily; I think that entitles me to know what they're really like.

I really don't know what your idea of a socialist is, and I'm genuinely interested in understanding your point. So if you read this, Lane Honda, please explain it to me.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Have I mentioned lately my huge crush on Vermillion? 'Cause I have one.

I was afraid this movie would be as described in the review. That's why I didn't spend ten bucks on it. I'll probably rent it, in the faint hope that it's not quite this bad.

The biggest shame about all this is that (most) people don't seem able to discuss rationally; so much of the dialog on religion/faith seems to degenerate into name calling. Too bad, really.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at October 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Agreed, Anna. I think it comes down to people NOT wanting to understand where the other person is coming from, and wanting to prove how the other person is wrong.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:07 PM

Sofia- I would have thought that Chile was much more Catholic than 50 %. I spent alot of time in Argentina when I was with a girl from Jujuy and that was some old school Roman Catholicism that you dont see here anymore. The church played a huge role in day to day life especially among the poor.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 12:09 PM

Name calling? On Pajiba? No way, ASS HOLES (right, tdehr)!

Hee. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by: tt_marie at October 7, 2008 12:12 PM

Vermillion,

When you say "My problem with this and similar works (even those from the likes of "serious" critics like Dawkins) is that, yes, there are stupid people who follow religion. But their argument is that the religion itself is the source of the stupidity. As if only the religion was removed, these folks would suddenly shoot up 50 IQ points" you are wholly, completely incorrect.

Neither myself, nor people like Dawkins or any other commentator has ever said people who believe in a religion are stupid. Way to overgeneralise and make a bullshit point to support a bullshit argument.

There are dumb people who belive in religion, certainly. There are also smart people who believe in religion. It is the very point of the word "Faith" (as it applies to religion) that, in my view, prevents even the smart people from opening their eyes to the truth.

You also wrote, "Faith doesn't mean blind obedience and blissful ignorance." When it applies to accepting religion (especially fundamentalist Islam or the American version of christianity), this is EXACTLY what faith means.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm kinda with Boogs and I'm one of those dumb nuts who supports religion. What Maher did was comedy, that's it. While he may prance around his sets and make intellectual postures there's nothing about him that reveal any deep intelligence. He does not publish scholorly, his musing are not the subject of philosophical treatis pieces...he's a comic.

I mean even as an intellectual comic Steve Martin cleans his clock. And let's not even talk about the late dear George Carlin or the still with us Jimmy Tingle. How many intellectual absurdist broadway plays has Maher written? How many New Yorker magazine satires has he done? He's a welter weight intellectual clown and he made a funny movie for those, like me, who enjoy his antics. He is not deep.

Eddie Izzard's stuff is more intellectual than Maher. And I'm sorry if a guy in can riff on latin as a dead language and crack you up in a way that you forget he's in heels and wearing lipstick...that guy rocks. He certainly rocks harder than Maher. You want religious intellectual comedy those who have high expectations of Maher...watch Cake or Death

Yes Maher's a witty comic which puts him over most of the dreck out there, but he is interested in being an entertainer first. If not, he would have done this on PBS or at least used a real documentary director.

And frankly, I wouldn't pay for it. If I want to review scholorly debates that challenges my faith, I go to PBS. There are dozens of shows on public television that go into compelling detail as to the inconsistancies you must accept to follow religious ideology. Just watch from Christians to Christ. Hell even the History channel does it.

So what's the purpose of the work? To entertain its target audience: People who watch those other shows and want a laugh. Nothing else. It's not a treatis on religion or an insightful documentary.

Also, what real, serious scholor is going want to be interviewed by him? That's like expecting a Hawking to be interviewed by Pat Roberts, or the Late Sagen by Jeff Foxworthy. No offense to Maher, but his schtick is clowning, high brow clowning, but clowning none the less.

I think its safe to say he got what he could get. For the purpose of the movie....that was enough.

Yeah...I agree with Boogs.

Posted by: Chuck B. at October 7, 2008 12:14 PM

Pathetic review.

What were you expecting, a scholarly refutation of religion? A documentary is not the appropriate forum for that. Bill was doing what he does best, pointing out the idiocy that is a necessary part of mainstream religion. You, and some of the other commentators fail to realize that when you subscribe to a religion you MUST accept those "crazy" views that people in your religion you believe. Even if you think that you practice a sane version (and the "crazy" people Bill interviewed think likewise), if you call yourself a christian, you have to accept being grouped with people like Jerry Faldwell. Moreover, it is entirely fair to criticize mainstream christians for their extremist brethren because it is those extremists who are protected by religious "tolerance and freedom" designed for the mainstream and it is only by comparison to extremists that moderates even SEEM moderate.

If you approach this movie with the right frame of mind, that it is a light hearted skewering of the faithful, then you will greatly enjoy it. If you expect a carefully researched and analyzed treatise designed to refute religion as a whole, then of course you will be disappointed. But, like Mr. Pisco, only someone who is religious, stupid, or completely oblivious to the movie's own characterization could think the latter.

Posted by: bwh33 at October 7, 2008 12:19 PM

dylanj, the Catholic church is not what it used to be. People call themselves "Catholics", but they're not really Catholics. And Evangelicals have expanded greatly over the last decade or so. The Catholic church tries interfere with the government, and they certainly help the poor, but there's only so much they can do, so people expect the goverment to do the rest. Hence, two socialist presidents in a row.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:19 PM

Oh, jeez, people. Let's all agree to ignore Lane Honda...I think it's related to Conrad. All LH comments are to do with Commie Liberals who hate America and want to give the country to the terrorists.

Just stay way. Especially you, Jay, I have a soft spot for you.

Posted by: Estelle at October 7, 2008 12:19 PM

Sofia,

"I live in a country that's part Catholic, part Evangelical, and part secular socialist. The former and the current president are both socialists and do not believe in God. They have not, however, tried to impose that belief on the people because they know the other 50% of the country has a religious belief."

I would argue that they have imposed it - by the very act of using government to dictate how others should live, what should be done with their property, what is allowed and what is forbidden. When you find a Christian forcing another person* to attend their church and give tithing against their will, then you will have found a parallel to socialists controlling government and using it to make their world in their image.

tt_marie,

Thanks, you got what I was trying to say; it's not that all atheists (of which I am one) are socialists or otherwise trying to control other people's lives through secular means. It's that I'd rather be around people who believe in invisible unicorns and yet leave me alone, than be around those who are nonbelievers yet think Brave New World is not just a cool book but a great idea.

* - their kids don't count. :)

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 12:20 PM

No it doesnt boogs and people like you who decide that's what being an American Christian is all about are the exact kind of intolerant assholes we are complaining about. You arent the arbiter of "the truth" and if you have a problem with people who choose to believe in something greater than themselves keep it to yourself. Also you said above that people who look at the pro's and con's would see what a bunch of "bollocks" religion is. So you are saying that you have not and never will call a believer stupid but that if they were only more informed they would see how stupid their belief is?

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 12:20 PM

tt_marie,

You wrote, "As for what Lane Honda said, I think some of you may have misinterpreted her comment. I think she was saying that if she had to choose between being governed by libertarian fundamentalists and secular socialists, she'd choose the fundamentalists. She was NOT saying that all atheists or agnostics are socialists, nor was she saying that all religious folks are libertarians. Her point was that she didn't care what people believe, so long as they keep it to themselves."

Again, I think I've found another uniquely American view, this time on the word "socialism."

I don't believe I'm a socialist but see nothing wrong or offensive in being labeled one. As a matter of fact, I take more offense at being labeled "Capitalist" than socialist.

I think that most Americans (on the right and left) are truly scared of the word socialist or socialism. Look at universal healthcare, something practiced in westernised countires such as France, Canada and the UK. In America it's called "Socialized Medicine" and is, therefore, evil and must be stopped.

Socialism isn't bad or evil, people. It may not be for you (or even me), but with the economy the way it is, your straight-out capitalism isn't looking like such a good idea either.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 12:22 PM

Estelle,

I'm afraid your Bush Derangement Syndrome has caused you to think anyone who doesn't bow down to progressive dogma is a neocon. Ignore me if you want; it's what true believers do to those who question what should be accepted on faith. Peace be with you.

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Great review and I think you've made a really important point about the hypocricy of a lot of people like Bill Maher. I was not really raised with a religion and rarely attended church. I've never considered myself religious, but I have no problem with people who adhere to a faith - if it works for them, great. And while I'm just as turned off by the Christian right as the next person, I have to admit that I've probably encountered many more self-proclaimed atheists obnoxiously attempting to convert the masses to their beliefs than religous zealots. Often, these people are even more obnoxious than their Jesus-loving counterparts because they come at you with an attitude of smug, self-satisfaction, as if the ability to reiterate soundbites gleaned from South Park episodes or Michael Moore films somehow makes them frightfully intelligent.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

Posted by: KiwiBrownn at October 7, 2008 12:26 PM

Do we always need to take the high road?

Why can't we just do what they do for once?

Do you really think they have seen any of the films that have respectfully disrespected religion?

Posted by: me at October 7, 2008 12:26 PM

I would argue that they have imposed it - by the very act of using government to dictate how others should live, what should be done with their property, what is allowed and what is forbidden. When you find a Christian forcing another person* to attend their church and give tithing against their will, then you will have found a parallel to socialists controlling government and using it to make their world in their image.

Posted by: Lane Honda

Michelle Bachelet and Ricardo Lagos did not dictate Chilean people how to live our lives. You know who did? Pinochet, our conservative dictator for 17 years. He was a strict Catholic.

I don't like my president and I didn't vote for her, but I cannot just sit here while you share your misled ideas of what a socialist government is like. Goverments, whether they're right winged or left winged, are supposed to deal with matters of state, such as the economy, international relations, law creation, and several others. They are not entitled nor encouraged to tell people how to live their lives.

I, by no means, am trying to insult you, but I really think you should inform yourself before making a statement like that. It's the only way to have a transparent dialogue.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:28 PM

Sofia- Interesting stuff, I know the company I work for has a major crush on the current administration in Chile and is dying to get into that market.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 12:28 PM

LH

"When you find a Christian forcing another person* to attend their church...* - their kids don't count. :)"

By even saying that (even in a joke), you give any arguments against religion all the credence they'll ever need.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 12:31 PM

Whoa, there.

"if you call yourself a christian, you have to accept being grouped with people like Jerry Faldwell"...this? No. Nope.

Um, first of all, it is Jerry Falwell. Pretty sure you have no idea what kind of crazy shit this guy does if you don't even know how to spell his name.

Secondly, I don't know Jerry Falwell. We aren't friends. I don't go to his church. I don't believe many, MANY of the things he and his followers believe. The fact that I have some basic beliefs in common with this man does not mean that I should "expect" to be grouped with him. That's like...saying anyone who believes that the government should assist underprivileged citizens should "expect" to be grouped with Pot Pol.

Jerry Falwell was a supporter of segregation and once said that AIDS was God's punishment for gays and for a society that tolerates gays. No, I do not associate myself with him, and I'd ask that anyone encountering me as a Christian would refrain from associating me with him as well.

Posted by: tt_marie at October 7, 2008 12:31 PM

I think that most Americans (on the right and left) are truly scared of the word socialist or socialism.

boogs, you're RIGHT ON. Or maybe they don't know what it really means in our times.

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Sofia,

"Goverments, whether they're right winged or left winged, are supposed to deal with matters of state, such as the economy, international relations, law creation, and several others. They are not entitled nor encouraged to tell people how to live their lives."

Try to find one legal transaction between individuals in your country which is not, in at least three different places, controlled by government legislation in some form or another. I can't do it with the United States, and that is usually considered a free-market capitalist country by those who haven't informed themselves on such issues.

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 12:33 PM

Bucaddy, you're not wrong about the good religion can do for people, but if Maher's raging ego of a movie could have a point other than 'look how fucking smart I am compared to a theme-park actor' it would be this: the good that religion does for people does not outweigh the bad. The decency people exhibit doesn't have to be a result of religious virtuosity, but the hatred people have for teh gayz, women, the 'other', etc. is almost always a result of it.

And vincong and Lane Honda, the problem with libertarian Christians is that it's a complete oxymoron. Being Christ-like means caring for others, which is also what socialism is; and one of the major tenets of Christianity is conversion.

Posted by: Marra at October 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Yeah. Have fun with this, y'all. I'm taking my agnostic ass to Pajiba Love.

Posted by: Kolby at October 7, 2008 12:35 PM

the real question is when does 30 rock come back?

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 12:39 PM

"And vincong and Lane Honda, the problem with libertarian Christians is that it's a complete oxymoron. Being Christ-like means caring for others, which is also what socialism is"

Good lord. You do understand the difference between consensual sex and rape, right? Now try the difference between charity and tax, and the difference between people freely giving of themselves to others, and a bureaucracy controlling other people's resources to dole out as they see fit.

I've commented too much in this thread (I'm sure the one thing we can all agree on)...have fun.

Posted by: Lane Honda at October 7, 2008 12:39 PM

You know, nobody has done this topic better than the South Park guys. Season 10's episode when Cartman is sent to the future. The truth is that people band together and fight and ostracize and trample rights because they are people, not because religion tells them to. If there weren't religion, they would find another excuse (and have on plenty of occasions).

Posted by: Eep at October 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Lane Honda, let me rephrase my statement by saying "goverments are not allowed to tell people what to believe."

Posted by: Sofía at October 7, 2008 12:43 PM

If this film bills itself as a documentary, then it has to meet two standards in order to be considered "good." It has to present facts to support its premise, and it has to be interesting.

It sounds like it presented the easiest, lowest-common-denominator "facts", and wasn't even clever about doing so.

And that's my problem with Maher in a nutshell. He just presumes that you agree with his logical underpinnings, and runs with it. He doesn't question himself first. And that leads him to build on a very shaky foundation that can't sustain the weight of his "hilarious" anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: Wednesday at October 7, 2008 12:44 PM

"...It's that all religions are fundamentally wrong and idiotic. He presents it with this air of pomposity...."


Yeah, and speaking of pomposity, this "review" has quite a bit of it. It's a slam job, worthy of Ain't It Cool, Prisco.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 7, 2008 12:46 PM

Neither myself, nor people like Dawkins or any other commentator has ever said people who believe in a religion are stupid. Way to overgeneralise and make a bullshit point to support a bullshit argument.

I never overgeneralized. I never assumed any of the commenters here believed that. I didn't even make an argument, really. I simply made an observation of everything I have read and seen coming from critics, including Dawkins. And they main points? That religion is only for those who just don't know any better, while the intelligentsia should not be bothered. Intelligentsia that happens to include folks like Dawkins.

And what exactly about my "argument" is bullshit?

There are dumb people who belive in religion, certainly. There are also smart people who believe in religion. It is the very point of the word "Faith" (as it applies to religion) that, in my view, prevents even the smart people from opening their eyes to the truth.

What is this "truth", my dear boogs? If I am reading this correctly, you believe that anyone, smart or dumb, that follows a religion or has faith are at best misguided, at worst completely delusional.

I mean, that is what you are saying? I don't want to presume or anything. Because if that is what you are saying, then doesn't that validate the very opinion you just called as bullshit?

You also wrote, "Faith doesn't mean blind obedience and blissful ignorance." When it applies to accepting religion (especially fundamentalist Islam or the American version of christianity), this is EXACTLY what faith means.

That is just it. Fundamentalist ANYTHING is NOT TRUE FAITH. It is cultish brainwashing that demands no doubt, no reason, no questioning. Faith, as espoused in many a religious text, is believing while accepting contradiction, not completely ignoring it. There is a considerable difference. Just because a bunch of yahoos co-opted the word for their lunacy, it doesn't mean the true definition is lost.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 1:06 PM

I was born in a Communist country and in my opinion I had a lot more freedom living there than I have now, living in America.

And listen up you bastards, this is not a complaint but a mere statement. So spare me your "pack your bags and go back" comments.

Posted by: Agent Scully at October 7, 2008 1:08 PM

If anything, Maher's ;logical underpinnings' should be the first place ANYONE should start from. After years of being taught Christianity.... should that then be a starting point for a journey questioning faith? No way. Start out thinking that none of it's true, that people should actually have to describe why they believe what they believe.

Also, saying that it's not fair that Maher only interviews nutjobs and not 'serious' scholars is silly, too. That's like I'm saying, 'The emperor has no clothes' and you're saying 'How can you say the emperor has no clothes, you CLEARLY haven't considered what such-and-such fashion guru has to say about the emperor's clothes.' The emperor still has no clothes.

Posted by: DouchebagAtheist at October 7, 2008 1:09 PM

If anything, Maher's ;logical underpinnings' should be the first place ANYONE should start from. After years of being taught Christianity.... should that then be a starting point for a journey questioning faith? No way. Start out thinking that none of it's true, that people should actually have to describe why they believe what they believe.

Also, saying that it's not fair that Maher only interviews nutjobs and not 'serious' scholars is silly, too. That's like I'm saying, 'The emperor has no clothes' and you're saying 'How can you say the emperor has no clothes, you CLEARLY haven't considered what such-and-such fashion guru has to say about the emperor's clothes.' The emperor still has no clothes.

Posted by: DouchebagAtheist at October 7, 2008 1:10 PM

To really show problems with religion, you must be informed about it. I know people who say so many things about Christianity but did they go to a Lutheran school for 12 years of their life? No? Well, I think I'm a little more qualified to bash Christianity than you are.

I'm slowly realizing the results of my brainwashing. I see people I went to high school with slowly self-destructing because they can't exist in a normal college environment. Without all the rules and constant dogma they explode. Spent their life at the bottom of the ocean and now that they're here without the pressure and darkness; Here where it's beautiful and light, They decompress too fast.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at October 7, 2008 1:12 PM

Yeah, why should a government have any say in the order of a nation...that's for corporations to do. *eyeroll*

And some atheists are obnoxious, sure. Know what else is obnoxious? Bloody crucifixion pictures stuck in my front door every spring. That's a lovely invite right there.

Posted by: spade at October 7, 2008 1:17 PM

I'm probably retreading on some points already made here, but while this movie was far from perfect, I think the point was missed here.

This wasn't intended to be the most in-depth look into religion. It was supposed to simply show one outsider's view on many different religious beliefs. It's easy to criticize Maher and say that he didn't do a good job or didn't interview the right people, but who were the right people? The Pope? The 'prophet' of the Mormon church? Xenu? The people he found, in my opinion, at least, were actually great examples because they were people who honestly believe what they say they believe. Why shouldn't their viewpoints matter? Why shouldn't they be asked why they believe a lot of the things that, frankly, just sound ridiculous?

It's faults aside, as an atheist I really enjoyed this movie. What he did was present a (somewhat) atheistic viewpoint where (at least here in the U.S.) it is sorely lacking. As much as some religious people like to claim that they're persecuted, the fact of the matter is that atheists are one of the most hated, disrespected, and least influential peoples who's views are often dismissed if even considered. The call for nonbelievers to stand up at the end of the movie wasn't about us becoming a fundamentalist group, it was about making our voices heard and letting people know that we're not ashamed to not believe and we're not going to stand around and let people with beliefs that we usually see as ridiculous try to rule our lives.

Posted by: Mike at October 7, 2008 1:25 PM

Eh, I saw it this weekend. I thought it was pretty good.

It's not billing itself as a documentary. He does ridicule religion and from my point of view (atheist), that's something that doesn't get done often enough. Yeah, it takes some cheap shots, but the difference between Bill Maher and the pastor of a church is, Maher doesn't get to do it tax-free and with the assumption that he's better than everyone else because he's spreading the word of God. Yeah, he's a little patronizing and there's a speech at the end that's kinda cheesy, but I'm at a loss to come up with another way to conclude the film.

The religious are free to dislike this film (if they've seen it) and dislike the manner in which it discusses religion, but they should also have to abide by the same standards they would hold Maher to. He probably would have loved to get the pope and Billy Graham and whoever the top guys in Islam, Judaism, Mormonism and Scientology are in the movie, but I imagine he had to settle for the few people who would agree to talk to him on-camera. Kinda like many religious people (from my observation, it's most religious people) use only the worst examples of whatever group they dislike to discredit all of them. The flamiest gay guy, the flakiest liberal, the most man-hating feminist, etc.

The movie isn't meant to be a detailed examination of religion. He's not a college history professor. He's making fun of religion. It's pretty obvious from the title, kinda like a porno. And it probably makes him happy every time he hears/reads of a religious person being made angry by it.

Oh, and this part of the review: "That's what religion should be. It's like a vacation buffet in an exotic city. You go around and try everything, and throw away the stuff that's distasteful to you."

I know many, many people who would vehemently disagree with that. Their religion is not a buffet, no way, no how. The very suggestion would insult them more than anything Maher said.

If the good people of the various religions are being (essentially) slandered by the bad people who claim to be speaking for them, then you good people need to start doing something about it instead of bitching every time some asshole who doesn't represent you yaps into a microphone and makes you all look bad. Because you appear to be seriously outnumbered.

Posted by: Slash at October 7, 2008 1:27 PM

I can see your point mike. You shouldnt have to hide the fact that you dont believe in a higher power nor does that invalidate your opinion on anything. But I do disagree that these were the people to interview. Maher set out to expose how stupid religon is and by using stupid people as the reps for people who do believe he is painting a cloud picture.

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 1:29 PM

Jay,

Well, yes. Yes they have. That's my point. Most of them are probably going to vote anyway (maybe; I'm not sure they thought McCain was all that hot, until he hooked up with Palin), but why does the Left insist on trying to push the rest to the polls too? Are they never going to learn?

Take all the shots you want the rest of the time, but a month before a presidential election just seems like a deliberate provocation to me, like a cattle prod to get exactly the kinds of people you don't want voting out to the polls.

On a second point of yours, the reason they don't leave you alone is because the Bible tells them "Go and preach the gospel to every living creature." And you might rightfully wish they'd spend more time preaching to lions and tigers and grizzly bears. But I'm just telling you where that comes from.

===

The point I came here to make, though, is that it wasn't that long ago the movies held up religious people of courage and conviction as people to emulate -- Father Flanagan, Sister Helen Prejean, Ghandi -- rather than people to ridicule.

I'm pretty sure that in today's atmosphere Father Flanagan would be a child molester, Sister Prejean would moonlight as a stripper and Ghandi would carry an AK-47 he called the Peacemaker.

And while I'm at it, why isn't Maher mocking Muslims and Buddhists and ... you name it? What a brave guy.

And just for the hell of it, I'll mention that I thought Maher got screwed for his comment about the 9/11 hijackers. He was right.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 7, 2008 1:29 PM

Somebody get sirkickyass and Conrad on the phone and tell them to bring in the reinforcements!

Can just turn this into a mini div about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, anal sex, polygamy, taxes, book burning, nuclear proliferation and dildos?

Posted by: branded at October 7, 2008 1:34 PM

Great review Mr. Prisco.

Its interesting that a movie can be very funny and douchetastic at the same time. I can not think of any other example.

Posted by: EricD at October 7, 2008 1:42 PM

Anyone who has regularly watched Bill Maher's shows knows what to expect. As soon as I heard about the film, I knew exactly what Maher would be doing, and how he would be doing it. Maher knows his audience. He knows that we know he is (or acts like) a pompous asshole. We've seen him hitting below the belt on almost every subject imaginable. He's already given us all the snippets, and now he's bundled them together to make some money. I'm not going to cry for the fanatics and hypocrites because they were fools put in front of a camera; they were that way before the moment and they'll be that way after. I'm not going to call Maher a bully or whine that he didn't fairly "document" anything. I know he's a fucking comedian. I know I can either plunk down my ten bucks to watch him embarrass people or not. People are going to see to Religulous watch Bill Maher make fun of people. To know Maher is to know exactly what this film would be like before I've seen it.

Posted by: Cindy at October 7, 2008 1:42 PM

the reason they don't leave you alone is because the Bible tells them "Go and preach the gospel to every living creature."

Yeah and so much for that hands-off government Ms/Mr Honda was speaking of.

Are they never going to learn?

Well you already said they're not going to leave the rest of the people alone, so what's the added harm in criticizing their candidates?

Besides, Church doesn't excuse what you do to the State. That's worthy of criticism.

Being an infidel against Christians does tend to get you fewer one-on-one death threats these days, but there's no target in going after Buddhism.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 1:50 PM

Amen Slash. I really don't have anything to add because I don't want to wade in this muck, but I did want you to know that I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. If "good" Christians spoke up as much as the "bad" ones, then maybe we wouldn't have a comment thread that looks like this one. Not that it wasn't hilarious.

Posted by: abijah at October 7, 2008 1:59 PM

who knows what background story a person is bringing to the table when forming a belief system anyways? if you are a believer, and were born elsewhere than north america, would you belief conform to american systems, or would you form a belief around the systems within your culture? would you be muslim if you were born in the middle east? would you be buddhist if you were raised in eastern climes? difficult to say. a little 'live and let live' attitude is the best way to account for believers and non-believers alike. but we do enjoy confrontation, don't we? religion is always a popular polarization topic, and it always creates a sore spot because of our inability to account for how we developed our personal system. in the end, the basic position is the same - 'because'.

what's easy to say is that if you were surprised by Maher being Maher, well what did you expect? he's a well known personality and it sounds like his film effort conforms to type, hey?

Posted by: replica at October 7, 2008 2:09 PM

Also, Muslims and Buddhists aren't in power in the US and don't have a dominant hold on the population, so there's even less use for that. It'd probably be the Arabian Bill Maher's job.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 2:22 PM

All this hullaballoo is precisely why I embrace no religion in any matter, and make all life/morality choices with a 20-sided die. That's just how I roll!

HEEEEY-OOOO! That's just how I ROLL! Huh? Pretty friggin' good, huh? WHOO!

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at October 7, 2008 2:38 PM

Posted by: ian at October 7, 2008 2:45 PM

This is probably been said already,but the only thing that any movie or show involving Bill Maher is about, and the only thing Bill Maher wants it to be about, is Bill Maher.

I think that he can be very funny in the heat of debate, but his best stuff is the scripted stuff -- the monologues, the "new rules" etc -- all of which writers do for him. But even on his show, he wants and needs to be the only center of attention. he had Salman Rushdie on the other day and I'd be a rich man if I had a nickel for every time Rishdie tried to jump into the debate only to have Bill interrupt him. Hes interrupting Salman Fucking Rushdie for goodness' sake -- that should give you an idea of who has the real God complex.

Posted by: eddie at October 7, 2008 2:54 PM

Mike,

You wrote, "As much as some religious people like to claim that they're persecuted, the fact of the matter is that atheists are one of the most hated, disrespected, and least influential peoples who's views are often dismissed if even considered. The call for nonbelievers to stand up at the end of the movie wasn't about us becoming a fundamentalist group, it was about making our voices heard and letting people know that we're not ashamed to not believe and we're not going to stand around and let people with beliefs that we usually see as ridiculous try to rule our lives."

And I say (with pun very much intended) Amen, brother. You really hit the nail on the head. The unfortunate part is that this (USA) is a country that no matter how well-thought-out your argument against religion is, even the most intelligent people (and yes, Vermillion, you ARE clearly intelligent) will just make the old "faith" chestnut argument.

BSlim, Jay, Cindy, Spasde, douchebag atheist, Sofia well done and well said by all of you. I know that this forum (an anonymnous comment thread on a movie blog, for fuck's sake) isn't the most far-reaching or profound of arenas, but I applaud your willingness to speak the truth and stand-up in the face of such mind-numbing blindness that is adherence to an organized religion (or any kind of religion, for that matter) in the USA.

And Slash kudos to you, too for pointing out the most offensive thing about Prisco's review:

"Oh, and this part of the review: 'That's what religion should be. It's like a vacation buffet in an exotic city. You go around and try everything, and throw away the stuff that's distasteful to you.'

I know many, many people who would vehemently disagree with that. Their religion is not a buffet, no way, no how. The very suggestion would insult them more than anything Maher said."


and Vermillion, you wrote, "What is this "truth", my dear boogs? If I am reading this correctly, you believe that anyone, smart or dumb, that follows a religion or has faith are at best misguided, at worst completely delusional.

I mean, that is what you are saying? I don't want to presume or anything. Because if that is what you are saying, then doesn't that validate the very opinion you just called as bullshit?"

Guess what, mon frere? You're damn, fucking right that's what I'm saying, but you're damn fucking wrong when you claim it "validates the very opinion [I] just called bullshit." As I said before (do try to keep up) I never said EVERYONE who believed in religion must be STUPID. 'K? But do I think that even the intelligent people who belive in religion are at least misguided? Well, duh! That's what aethism IS, you nitwit!

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 3:00 PM

Maher is right when he says religion is dangerous. It's dangerous because bad people are allowed to speak in its name and act as the spokesperson.

Oh please. Would have been nice if Pajiba had reviewed this film.

Posted by: abby at October 7, 2008 3:04 PM

I haven't seen this yet but am planning on renting it (cuz really, is it that much better on the big screen?) so I can't obviously make a totally informed comment, but I'll do my bit. So he picks off the low-hanging fruit, including some theme park Jesus - the guy's not out for a serious debate, this is to be entertainment where he gets on his soapbox for a while. Great visuals, by the way, in challenging a facsimile of the saviour face to face. Am I going into it expecting serious, informed debate? No. But having him show how stupid some people are maybe he'll start a meaningful discussion, whether he meant to or not, and regardless of his methods, I think that's ultimately a good thing - he might even get some sheeple questioning their own beliefs and maybe start thinking for themselves!

Now, was Priso's review fair? He's clearly got a bone to pick with Maher but I don't think it besmirches the reputation of the Pajibaverse. It was thorough, thoughtful, and well-considered in my opinion, not to mention written to his consistently high standards. So all you haters, sit down and stick to the merits of his opinion and the subject matter, not how he expressed them; just because you don't like his slant doesn't mean it was poorly done. Impeccable as usual, sir. And I dare say, your review plus Maher's subject matter has done a good job of provoking discussion. Thank you.

Posted by: lordhelmet at October 7, 2008 3:05 PM

But do I think that even the intelligent people who belive in religion are at least misguided? Well, duh! That's what aethism IS, you nitwit!

Actually, atheism is strictly disbelief in God(s). It has naught to do with others' beliefs. Just needed to point that out.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at October 7, 2008 3:14 PM

*sigh* okay, AVB, I should've written "That's a big part of being an aetheist."

Happy, now, oh great Queen Pedant? And here I was thinking I didn't have to spell everything out...

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 3:21 PM

who took a shit in boogs cheerios?

Is there some kind of law i havent seen that requires you to disagree on the internet by acting like a douche?

Posted by: dylanj at October 7, 2008 3:33 PM

Politics and religion seems to be getting the most hits around here lately. Hey Pajiba Overlords! Let's turn this place upside down ala Old Mother...er..L. Ron Hubbard. I'll bet you five dollars we can start a political religion based on Godopus and the murdertank. Godopus can tell us who to kill based on the directional quality of the tentacle of the day, and we can drive the murdertank through the streets with that ice-cream truck music spewing our views and beliefs. If people don't comply with our directives, shoot them down. Since there isn't really any real god behind our religion, it ought to be good for pulling in the athiests too.

Posted by: Cindy at October 7, 2008 3:36 PM

Great idea, Cindy! And I'll get to use my 20-sided "Die of Fate"! Or should we stick with an 8-sided one being that Godtopus has the eight tentacles and whatnot? I mean, it kinda limits you choices when it comes right down to judgement, but... Aw, hell - 8-sided "Die of Fate" it is!

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at October 7, 2008 3:44 PM

dylanj,

Doucheity is my modus operandi sometimes, I guess. I think I'm making a very clear, well-written argument that drips with sarcasm, while others think I'm quite literally douching in my own doucheness. I suppose they can't ALL be wrong...

I guess I'm just passionate about this topic.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 3:44 PM

Well, happier. I guess.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at October 7, 2008 3:45 PM

"...douching in my own doucheness..."

Yeah, I've been down that road...

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at October 7, 2008 3:52 PM

"...is not a complaint but a mere statement. So spare me your "pack your bags and go back" comments.

Posted by: Agent Scully at October 7, 2008 1:08 PM.


YOU, and your statements, can go back to Russia

Do svidaniya! comrade.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 7, 2008 3:53 PM

The film might very well be mean-spirited and subpar, but I at least do respect Maher for generating the dialogue in mainstream channels. In the interviews I've seen him give about the film, he does a fairly good job of presenting his ideas in a reasoned and respectful manner, even if the film itself does not assume that tone. In a country that still shies away from electing open atheists/agnostics to any public office, it's a conversation that needs to be had. (To a few posts above: very well said, Mike.)

I'm of the live-and-let-live philosophy when it comes to religious belief (so long as it doesn't infringe on others obviously), but I do think that in the long run a shift away from religious belief and toward a secular humanist philosophy is better for humanity if we're going to make progress as a species. That's a more gradual change that won't be happening in my lifetime, though, and there's no sense in rushing it via objectionable tactics.

As bucdaddy says above, it is true that lots of good is done in the name of religion. My response to that is that the same good can be done in the absence of religion. In contrast, what about the evils for which religion is responsible? I don't think those particular evils would exist in the absence of religion.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 7, 2008 4:04 PM

The thing is: this is the most beautifully written, grammatically perfect, WORST review ever.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 7, 2008 4:11 PM

Politics and religion seems to be getting the most hits around here lately.

I'd rather not see the Dept of Homeland Security shutting down Pajiba again.

Posted by: branded at October 7, 2008 4:22 PM

What's with calling Mahr a "skinny Moore" pejoratively?

Moore is a great filmmaker whose documentaries speak dangerous truth to power in an entertaining way.

I don't see the problem. Has the anti-moor propaganda sunk you? Do you feel Moore's a "pompous elitist"? Did he snub at the shrimp cocktail buffet? Blech
cocktail buffet? Blech

Posted by: Saphique at October 7, 2008 4:25 PM

As I said before (do try to keep up) I never said EVERYONE who believed in religion must be STUPID. 'K? But do I think that even the intelligent people who belive in religion are at least misguided? Well, duh! That's what aethism IS, you nitwit!

Maybe I am missing something, but that is what I said. The very part you called bullshit.

You took offense that I said that the critics I read about think that anyone who believe in any religion is somehow clueless, otherwise they wouldn't believe. And yet, you go on to say you do indeed think that.

I admire your passion, but your snark is really unnecessary. If you don't believe, fine. If you think people are somehow lesser for want of more meaning to life, that is your deal. I never said you couldn't, or that you were somehow less of a intelligent person for having that view. Between the two of us, the only one having issue with a different view is you, honestly.

And isn't such absolutism the very thing Maher says he is against? That such militant atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist religion? That taking such a immovable stance on the existence of a deity is pointless, because we just don't know?

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 4:37 PM

P.S. That "EVERYONE isn't an idiot" remark sounds awfully familiar....

"Oh, I'm not saying EVERY [insert race here] are like that, but...."

But maybe I am just misinterpreting things. After all, I am so poorly misguided.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 4:41 PM

I think some people here are having a hard time separating whether Maher is a douche from whether he's right. I don't understand why this kind of work is interesting unless you're horribly insecure. It's like the mirror image of sitting around with a bunch of friends that agree with you and running down the list of all the shit you agree on. It's less stimulating than reality television. I'm not mad that he made it; I'm an atheist myself and as a big fan of personal rights and privacy I'm certainly not one to criticize others for their wanking material. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that what amounts to a multi-hour strawman isn't a waste of time either.

Posted by: Eep at October 7, 2008 4:45 PM

OK, Vermillion you've succeeded and annoyed me. You really don't read things properly, do you? OK. Simple terms.

I don't think religious people are stupid. Or clueless. There. Got it?

I do think those prescribing to an organized religion are misguided. There. Got it?

Why is it that becuase I think religion is bullshit and people who subscribe are misguided (which, again, is a natural conclusion if you are an atheist) I think they're "lesser."

The problem is this, Vermillion. We can argue and debate over a whole number of issues and have good/bad points on each side. But when it comes to religion (of the fucking US flag) or any other sacred cow, normally intelligent people become absolutely blinded to any other view. You and your ilk have proved this.

You write, "That such militant atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist religion?" Bullshit, buddy. As Darth Corleone said, militant atheism has not caused the war, death and evil in this world that militant religious fundamentalism has.

And here, for your edification, is what I wrote again. This time try actually reading it:

and Vermillion, you wrote, "What is this "truth", my dear boogs? If I am reading this correctly, you believe that anyone, smart or dumb, that follows a religion or has faith are at best misguided, at worst completely delusional.

I mean, that is what you are saying? I don't want to presume or anything. Because if that is what you are saying, then doesn't that validate the very opinion you just called as bullshit?"

Guess what, mon frere? You're damn, fucking right that's what I'm saying, but you're damn fucking wrong when you claim it "validates the very opinion [I] just called bullshit." As I said before (do try to keep up) I never said EVERYONE who believed in religion must be STUPID. 'K? But do I think that even the intelligent people who belive in religion are at least misguided?

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 4:54 PM

BARBADO, I couldn't agree more. Brian, you are a fantastic writer, but I don't think you get what Maher is about. You write that, "He's doing exactly what he accuses mainstream religion of doing: regurgitating ideas for a bunch of sheep who nod and bleat and clap." However, you don't acknowledge that the "sheep" as you call them that agree with Maher agree with him because of REASON and RATIONALITY. Maher very often makes this point on Real Time. The "sheep" that we non-believers deride are "sheep" because they blindly believe something that has no rational back-up; this is precisely what makes them sheep. By your definition of "Maher's sheep" (as opposed to "religious sheep", for the sake of this argument) any group of people who agree on anything can be classified as sheep. This is a hell of a poor argument.

Secondly, you write of Jesus' possible foreign travels and study saying, "That's what religion should be." It's an awfully presumtuous thing to say for your part about "what a religion SHOULD be." As someone who obviously respects religion yourself, who are you to say that religion SHOULD be anything to anyone else? Aren't you just as bad as Maher saying that we all SHOULD believe that religion is bullshit?

Once again, you are obviously smart and a very good writer. But you don't get what Maher is about. He knows that he is preaching to the choir because that is the very crowd he's trying to motivate. We live in a deeply religious country, and Maher's snideness and vitriol is a product of living in a place where ration and reason are not given the respect that they deserve. As he's said on his show, it's time for us to stand up and scream that WE'RE NOT THE CRAZY ONES! This movie is made to encourage the quiet to become loud and the sitting to stand.

Posted by: Shooter at October 7, 2008 5:03 PM

boogs 3:21: You'll have to excuse AvB's 3:14 post, she was in the middle of a giganticus bolt of pleasure at the time.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Yes boogs Maher is a comedian, and he was trying to make a comedy, not a documentary. We all get that.
My problem with it isn't that he challenged fundamentalist. Or even that he ignored all the liberal Christians, and Jews, and Muslims (that he could have met outside any Unitarian meeting), and true agnostics (because they aren't so arrogant as to assume they are right and everyone else is wrong, but humbly say "I don't know")
My problem is that this so-called brilliant comedian who could have intelligently skewered fundamentalist leaders and called them on their bullshit and agendas instead did the comedic equivalent of picking on the retarded kids. He went for low hanging fruit. And he deserves to be called on that.

Posted by: Jeremy at October 7, 2008 5:23 PM

The problem is this, Vermillion. We can argue and debate over a whole number of issues and have good/bad points on each side. But when it comes to religion (of the fucking US flag) or any other sacred cow, normally intelligent people become absolutely blinded to any other view. You and your ilk have proved this.

And there is my problem. You think there is an "ilk" to argue against. Like it is so simple. Not once did you ever express the simplest intrigue as to WHY I or anyone else may feel they way they do. You write them off as misguided immediately, and make assumptions about their person or their mind because of it.

Just because a person isn't willing to sacrifice a sacred cow right off the bat, doesn't mean they are blinded by it. Maybe I just don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, even if the little bastard has been crying for hours and won't shut up. I think there are some things worth attention in the various religions, and I am not ready to just crap on them just to seem cool. There is a reason those cows became sacred in the first place, and maybe we should explore that, instead of trying to be all "rebel, rebel, burn it down" and crap.

And by stating we are "misguided", you presume that your way is the right guide in the first place. That is where I am getting this "lesser" vibe.

You write, "That such militant atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist religion?" Bullshit, buddy. As Darth Corleone said, militant atheism has not caused the war, death and evil in this world that militant religious fundamentalism has.

I wrote that in reference to what Maher himself has said. He is the one who puts forth the notion that the absolutism is the true problem. So, if he is honest about this assertion, he would have just as much of a problem with your stance as he would any yahoo with a crucifix.

And as far as the "religion caused so many wars" angle, as bucdaddy said: it is SOP to ignore all the good the adherents to a faith have done to focus on the bad. Gandhi and the Khymer faction were Buddhists. The Crusaders and Martin Luther King were Christian. Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin were atheists. Does the evil perpetrated by one's hands invalidate the good done by the other? If so, what would be the point in doing good anyway? Why even bother trying to make the world a better place, when some asshat can just come along and wreck it all under the guise of a similar belief system?

I just want to know: why is it so bad for me to NOT immediately denounce religion? Why is that action of mine so damn offensive to you? Why have an issue with my opinion? Why feel as if you had to argue me down?

My original post simply disagreed with your assertion that because the movie was a "comedy", it was okay that Maher targeted such easy marks. I thought that, by the way it was promoted, it was supposed to be a halfway-serious consideration of why people believe what they do, and how to address it. That is all. Suddenly, you come at me like I owed you money or something. And, I also note, you manage to call me a nitwit and such, because I disagree with you?

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 5:30 PM

Boogs is just mad that he is a "journalist" serving the US Army. He writes puff pieces for the army newsletter all the while he bitches about American, the flag, god ect ect basically biting the hand that feeds him.

So to recap he hates who he works for yet keeps accepting $ from that entity. Boogs is a whore and this makes him bitter and upset.

Posted by: The Truth at October 7, 2008 5:39 PM

BTW, Jay, I wasn't trying to "threaten" or silence anyone. All I'm saying is, given that Democrats are 3-8 since 1968 and might like to move back into the White House in your lifetime, and that this might be a close one, I'd think they wouldn't want to take any chances.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 7, 2008 5:43 PM

(I can't believe I'm even responding to such a wanker) Not for long "The Truth." I'm getting out of the Air Force (not Army, dumb-ass) and going back to England for good at the end of this year. I've had enough.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 6:05 PM

The vitriol in this review seems undeniably inspired by a distaste, not only for Maher, but for all non-theists. I've always enjoyed Pajiba's reviews but the bias in this one leaves me a little surprised.

Posted by: Amanda H. at October 7, 2008 6:53 PM

Well, you keep mentioning the GBH that the Christian Right will inflict on the November elections if the left won't shut up about how much they don't like them. I doubt that voting bloc is going to surrender the country if everyone just stops picking on them. I don't think they would've just stayed home if Palin hadn't come along. I don't think they're reading this site in any great numbers either.

The funny thing is that if Republicans do lose in large numbers they won't have to alter their persecution shtick at all. Where it's been coming from I have no idea.

Posted by: Jay at October 7, 2008 7:02 PM

I don't see why you have to be biased against theists to disapprove of Maher's work. Personally I'm more upset when someone I agree with does something I don't like than when any old jerk does it. I could see myself putting down about the same sentiments Prisco did despite being an atheist. I don't appreciate Maher acting as champion of atheism and using that mantle to get up in the face of believers. Now next time I'm in a discussion with a group of believers, this childish crap may well be a part of it, and of their perception of me. Great, thanks!

Posted by: Eep at October 7, 2008 7:13 PM

Vermillion,

It's saying stupid things like "I think there are some things worth attention in the various religions, and I am not ready to just crap on them just to seem cool" and "And by stating we are "misguided", you presume that your way is the right guide in the first place. That is where I am getting this "lesser" vibe" that make it obvious how young and non-worldly you are.

Come on. I really do think you're smart and you write really well. You can do better than the above shit.

You really think I'm crapping on religion to "just seem cool"?

And also, just because I believe a certain portion of the population is misguided about a particular issue, I don't think they're lesser...I just really disagree with them. When did taking a contrary position on an issue to someone make it necessary for you to think them lesser? Grow up a bit, seriously.

I'm sure you disagree with people on different things every day. I don't think you think of them as lesser than you because you think they're wrong.

Oh, and you can make the world a better place WITHOUT religion.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 7:20 PM

I had never heard of Bill Maher before I heard about this movie (on this very site, as a matter of fact), but I've been looking forward to it for months, and still am regardless of this review.
I read and engage in enough serious to discussion for any 10 reasonable people (arguing with religious people is something of a sport for me, though in a positive way. I've always been curious about what drives people to seek the kind of meaning that I find unnecessary), and I assumed this movie would be less like that and more like kicking back with a few friends and mocking all of those who disagree with me on politics and religion.
It might not be "right" (though I don't think religion really deserve the respect it gets, nothing deserves that kind of respect), but as a member of the choir, I've been looking forward to a movie aimed at me. Why is it such a problem that one movie is designed around this idea, when more serious documentaries are released all the time?

Posted by: Chugga at October 7, 2008 7:26 PM

Or should we stick with an 8-sided one being that Godtopus has the eight tentacles and whatnot?

Yes, lets go with the magic number 8. If people don't like eight, they must die.

Posted by: Cindy at October 7, 2008 7:31 PM

I loved Prisco's review, it was insightful and honest and mean and funny and true. The comments however, stirred up some mixed feelings, but my two cents turned into such an epic rant that I put them on my blog instead...

http://rantsfromthepants.blogspot.com/2008/10/its-been-while-since-i-invoked-wrath-of.html

Posted by: Pants at October 7, 2008 7:48 PM

Great review. I'm a little disappointed, but not really surprised. I'll probably save this one for Netflix instead of seeing it in the theater.

Oh, and praise to Xena, the One True Goddess!

Posted by: Elfrieda at October 7, 2008 8:03 PM

actually, a person's belief system is not just a private matter. if you don't believe me, then ask yourself why gay marriage, stem-cell research and evolution are considered "controversial" topics in the U.S. these are non-issues that shouldn't even be considered, but because the religious right has such a strong lobby, they become matters of "national interest". hell, it was only a few years ago they said that they decriminalized sodomy in Texas.

and yes, people should be able to believe in whatever they want to, but their beliefs are anything but private when it affects policy-making. the Republican party used to be the party of people like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater. you may not have agreed with them, but they were sane, rational individuals who you could respect. then the religious right took over the party and it quickly devolved into the party of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (and yes, I am saying they are not sane, rational individuals who you can respect). there are people who can put aside issues of faith when voting, but a large majority cannot and that is a problem.

the day an U.S. presidential candidate can say he is an atheist without being lynched by the mob for saying it is the day people like me will stop "being a prick" to religious people.

P.S. and booj is right when he says people from the U.S. have an irrational fear of socialism. having lived there for 6 years and various other countries in Europe, Asia and Africa, I can say that socialism isn't evil. paying taxes doesn't mean that your money is going to lazy people ... it means roads will actually be built and you can get health care.

Posted by: Le Kim Nguyen at October 7, 2008 8:16 PM

sorry, I meant boogs, not booj ... or maybe I meant booze. booze is always right

Posted by: Le Kim Nguyen at October 7, 2008 8:24 PM

I think it's abundantly clear that "prisco" should resign his status as "reviewer" and apologize to all pajibans.

Anything else...*shakes head*

*cue in Wilford Brimley*


anything else... would just destroy this site.


The ball's in your court Rowles.

...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 7, 2008 8:38 PM

Fundamentalist atheism cannot exist because there are no "fundamental" beliefs for atheists to hold.

If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair colour.

Posted by: Hazel Dean at October 7, 2008 8:41 PM

You people want to know what's sacrilegious? Fox trying to remake AbFab,that's what. Somebody has to stop the madness. Please!

Posted by: Cindy at October 7, 2008 8:48 PM

This is what I believe. I think it's worth sharing here right now: To each their own--just play nice, kids.

Posted by: meaux at October 7, 2008 8:53 PM

You're right Meaux, it's like my mother always says (about twelve times a day) live and let live...

Posted by: Pants at October 7, 2008 9:08 PM

It's saying stupid things like "I think there are some things worth attention in the various religions, and I am not ready to just crap on them just to seem cool" and "And by stating we are "misguided", you presume that your way is the right guide in the first place. That is where I am getting this "lesser" vibe" that make it obvious how young and non-worldly you are.

Come on. I really do think you're smart and you write really well. You can do better than the above shit.

Um, how is this not offensive? This is how it sounds to me: "You are really smart, except for that one thing I totally disagree with you on. Only in that way do I think you are inexperienced and stupid."

Do you really think that is supposed to be complimentary or something? Geez, at least the Christian "idiots" I call my family don't presume I am short on brainpower or a sinner just because I don't go lockstep with THEIR beliefs. I can disagree with them without condescension on either end, which is more than I can say here.

You say you think I am intelligent, but suddenly on the matter of religion, I can't possibly know what I am talking about based on the mere fact that I think there is something worthwhile about it. How is that rational?

Quite honestly, I would rather you call me stupid all around. At least it doesn't sound as patronizing.

You really think I'm crapping on religion to "just seem cool"?

No, I think you have a legitimate beef with religion, and I wouldn't begrudge you that. All I was asking was why is it that I can be just fine with your feelings on the subject, but I have to get passive-aggressive insults for not immediately saying religion is rubbish?

Oh, and you can make the world a better place WITHOUT religion.

Never said you couldn't. But that shouldn't negate the good things with religion that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. Some people did these things because their faiths guided them to do so. Whether you subscribe to their faiths or not isn't important. All I am saying is, could it be possible, could it be even probable, that religion, like so many other factors (money, science, fame), could possibly do other things than spread unspeakable evil? Could it?

If your answer is another emphatic "no", then the discussion is over as far as I am concerned. You are set in your way, and I am not going to try and make you leave it. You have as much right to feel that way as anyone, and I realize now that for me to try and convince you otherwise would be hypocritical to my whole point.

So have a nice day.

If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair colour.

Bald people do have hair. Just not necessarily on their heads.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 9:14 PM

It's called an analogy. I guess you're just stupid all around (you asked for it).

Posted by: Hazel Dean at October 7, 2008 9:26 PM

Now read here:

ALL codes of conduct between peoples who are trying to live together basically require the same conduct, i.e. DON'T STEAL, DON'T COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR'S WOMAN, and MIND your OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. Go ahead... read any code, from the bible or the coran or WHATEVER the fuck, you believe in.

They are basic principles that humans have needed in order to live in peace. The rest is just contract law and WHATEVER cultural baggage the particular culture carries. It doesn't come from any "god."

ANYTHING that deviates from the basic: "respect my shit" and "mind your own fucking business" is Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit. Except for, make sure...very sure, that your fellow man has shelter and food, and I mean, with decency and dignity.

I don't care if you believe in Jesus or Lenin, don't be an asshole.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Huh. This was not the review I was expecting from Pajiba. Way to keep me on my toes..? I guess?

I liked this movie and thought it was decently funny. Then again, I also laugh when people fall down. Incidentally the two are not that far off. I'll give you this - Maher did go for exceptionally easy targets. A bunch of Joe Sixpacks (teehee) at a truck stop church? A theme park Jesus impersonator? C'mon! Or so I at least thought at first.

I was kind of frustrated by the dearth of respectable, informed religious folk. I wanted the debates to be livelier (and just more palatable overall because idiocy makes me hurt) and in the back of my head I knew that the public would be criticizing Maher for this very thing. Then I realized, WAIT, why should he interview religious scholars, historians or theologians? Honestly, what portion of the religious public do these people really comprise? THESE people, the people Maher actually interviewed, are your average believer. You can talk to Popes and religious leaders and theologians all you want, but the average believer is the face of their religion and their interpretation of it is what counts at the end of day.

And.. ya know, if you guys think they're retarded... well, what can I tell you? *looks pointedly at you*

Okay, teehee. Just kidding. They're pretty dumb. But I still think they're only slightly below average compared to your average American.

Oh, and as an agnostic, let me just say that any time I see the words "fundamentalist", "militant", "proselytizing" or the phrase "preaching to the choir" used in reference to Atheism, it makes my skin fucking crawl. No, just NO. I don't harbor any violent hate for religion, but I'd appreciate not having any part of it likened to any part of me, 'kay thanks.

And you can't be a fundamental Atheist. I really wish people wouldn't look what I feel is the natural, default state of being through the lens of religion. It's, to quote Maher, "ass backwards."

Posted by: monkey_b at October 7, 2008 9:48 PM

It's called an analogy. I guess you're just stupid all around (you asked for it).

It's called a joke about a bad analogy. But at least you weren't patronizing.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 9:51 PM

Oh, and as an agnostic, let me just say that any time I see the words "fundamentalist", "militant", "proselytizing" or the phrase "preaching to the choir" used in reference to Atheism, it makes my skin fucking crawl.

Fair enough, the tag of "fundamentalist" is inaccurate, since the idea behind fundamentalism is its inflexibility. And as Dawkins once said, his mind can be changed by evidence, the fundamentalist mind cannot. And I am happy to assume that if any said evidence did present it self, the atheists and agnostics here would be willing to consider it.

And if we are making such requests, I have one: If you expressively believe that there cannot be, in any shape or form, a god or gods, then YOU ARE NOT AGNOSTIC. YOU ARE ATHEIST.

"A-": no, "gnosis": knowledge, "agnostic": not knowing. As in: "I don't know if there is one or not."

"A-": no, "theism": belief in at least one deity. "Atheism": no belief in a god at all. As in "There is no god."

Also, simply because a person doesn't belief in a god or gods, doesn't mean they are not allowed to at least ponder and discuss the possibility of anything beyond the five senses.

Maybe if more folks made that distinction, there would be fewer claims of "fundamentalist" atheism.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 7, 2008 10:54 PM

And if we are making such requests, I have one: If you expressively believe that there cannot be, in any shape or form, a god or gods, then YOU ARE NOT AGNOSTIC. YOU ARE ATHEIST.

I've never met someone who would make that claim, and I'm a member of a number of Atheist groups. The fact is that while the existence of a God is a possibility, so is the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the ideas deserve to be given the same probability of existence. They are both concepts with no supporting evidence and which are defined as impossible to disprove. The best that can be said is that (usually) the concepts are internally coherent.

Posted by: Chugga at October 7, 2008 11:03 PM

"A-": no, "gnosis": knowledge, "agnostic": not knowing. As in: "I don't know if there is one or not."
"A-": no, "theism": belief in at least one deity. "Atheism": no belief in a god at all. As in "There is no god."

Not quite, sir. As Dianna Narciso writes:

"Many claim the position of not knowing is merely agnosticism - but they're wrong. Agnosticism in the public mind is doubt, being on the fence, not sure if there is a god or not. In the true sense, as T.H. Huxley coined it, agnosticism is a claim of a lack of knowledge about the existence of gods.

...It is only by demanding that atheism requires certainty, or knowledge, that gods do not exist, that a person would find need for a word that describes a lack of knowledge of gods' existence. At their origins, atheism admits a lack of belief, while agnosticism admits a lack of knowledge.

We are all without knowledge of gods.

...If there were evidence of gods' existence, we would not need to believe in them. Belief is an active acceptance of something without evidence, or despite it. If you have enough evidence for a position, you don't need belief."

Posted by: hazel dean at October 7, 2008 11:14 PM

Thank you, Chugga. Well put.

It's our responsibility to teach these young 'uns a thing or two about a thing or two.

Vermillion, just stop now. You're doing yourself more harm than good. You've gone from good debate (if misguided - there's that word you love) to a metaphorical hysterically shrieking christian fundamentalist.

I'm off to bed where I intend to pray to the (equally implausible) invisible pink unicorn.

Posted by: boogs at October 7, 2008 11:14 PM

RE monkey_b: "I was kind of frustrated by the dearth of respectable, informed religious folk. I wanted the debates to be livelier (and just more palatable overall because idiocy makes me hurt) and in the back of my head I knew that the public would be criticizing Maher for this very thing. Then I realized, WAIT, why should he interview religious scholars, historians or theologians? Honestly, what portion of the religious public do these people really comprise? THESE people, the people Maher actually interviewed, are your average believer. You can talk to Popes and religious leaders and theologians all you want, but the average believer is the face of their religion and their interpretation of it is what counts at the end of day."

That's a good point. As awesome as it would be if every religious person was thoughtful and curious and motivated by love of his/her fellow human, most religious people seem to... not be motivated by any of that. Yes, there are religious scholars, but most of the Christians I'm familiar with (I'm from Oklahoma) don't respect or follow actual scholars, they respect people like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and James Dobson. The scholars, the guys who can read Aramaic and know that there are books in the bible written a thousand years apart, are held in contempt by many Christians in America because they dare to suggest that the bible they (the Christians) follow didn't fall straight down from heaven in exactly the same form they see it today. It wasn't pieced together by a committee, nosiree, it has existed in its present form since the earth was created 6,000 years ago. There are millions of Americans who believe these very things. I'm not misrepresenting their views. Ask one of them, they'll be happy to tell you all about it.

When Maher talked to those truckers, he was talking to people who represent millions of other Christians. They are a hell of a lot more like most American Christians than some self-appointed "leader" or religious scholar. They are mostly "working class" (whatever that means anymore) and don't really care to debate theology. There's nothing to debate, as far as they can see. They're right and if you don't agree with them, you're wrong.

Again, if any non-stupid religious people are pissed about the hatchet job they feel Maher has made about their beliefs, they're free to make a better movie, filled with people who better represent the majority of the faithful than Maher provided. If there are as many of them as the religious claim, they should be really easy to find.

Posted by: Slash at October 7, 2008 11:21 PM

So, you see, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, whereas agnostics simply admit they have no knowledge of gods. I don't really understand the logic in believing in something which I have no knowledge of (in this case, god), but if that's the position an agnostic wants to take, by all means.

I have no knowledge of any gods' existence, therefore I don't believe in any. I don't claim that there is no god, but there's just as much evidence of a flying spaghetti monster, and no one expects me to believe in that.

The burden of proof is on those making claims, i.e. there is a god.

So. There.

Posted by: hazel dean at October 7, 2008 11:23 PM

RE "I've never met someone who would make that claim, and I'm a member of a number of Atheist groups."

Well, you (kinda) know one now. There is no god or gods.

Posted by: Slash at October 7, 2008 11:25 PM

I have no knowledge of any gods' existence, therefore I don't believe in any. I don't claim that there is no god, but there's just as much evidence of a flying spaghetti monster, and no one expects me to believe in that.

There is actually a huge amount of evidence supporting the existence of the FSM, it's just that He hides it as soon as it is his found, with His Noodly Appendages.

Posted by: Chugga at October 7, 2008 11:27 PM

RE "I've never met someone who would make that claim, and I'm a member of a number of Atheist groups."

Well, you (kinda) know one now. There is no god or gods.

Not that I"m agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. I'd love to be able to rule out the existence of a god but have thus far seen no reason to reduce the probability from infinitesimal to zero.

Posted by: Chugga at October 7, 2008 11:30 PM

how the hell can you ppl skewer Prisco for his review being slightly biased then suggest he RESIGN when Rowles gets off with his heavy handed liberal viewpoints on a daily basis?

so now we can pick and choose what to get all touchy about, eh? perhaps a little consistency here, folks?

Posted by: Amber at October 8, 2008 1:00 AM

" . . . the whole glory of being intellectually superior to stupid people is that you don't have to rub their face in it."

Amen, brother. My hand to - er - Godtopus.

Kraken / Leviathan '08

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at October 8, 2008 4:25 AM

Vermillion, just stop now. You're doing yourself more harm than good. You've gone from good debate (if misguided - there's that word you love) to a metaphorical hysterically shrieking christian fundamentalist.

Am I missing something here? Am I typing gibberish or something?

All I did was ask "Is it even possible? Can't a person even consider it?" and what do I get as a response? "Oh stop, you're just being a silly billy." I cannot be the only person who sees this. What possible debate can there be when one side's ONLY argument is that the other side just doesn't know any better?

I guess that answers my question after all. A person can't even hold another viewpoint on the subject without being insulted and regarded as a simpleton. So fine. Do what you want. You have successfully killed any desire to give a shit about any religious discussion.

So have your fun. Enjoy whatever sense of victory you have. I am not even going to hold a grudge. I will simply walk away from any hint of religious talk on this site. Because it simply isn't worth the headache.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 8, 2008 4:28 AM

Skittimus

. . . make all life/morality choices with a 20-sided die.

Are you familiar with the books: The Dice Man, The Search for the Dice Man or The Book of the Die? Interesting reading. Try it, btw.

Chance / Wim '08

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at October 8, 2008 4:34 AM

so maher gives jews/talmudists a pass. figures.

Posted by: kikz at October 8, 2008 7:30 AM

"When Maher talked to those truckers, he was talking to people who represent millions of other Christians. They are a hell of a lot more like most American Christians than some self-appointed "leader" or religious scholar. They are mostly "working class" (whatever that means anymore) and don't really care to debate theology."

Really? So statistically speaking, most Christians in the country are bible-beating evangelicals? Unbelievable. Look, seriously only 7% of the population is evangelical. Has it occured to you that nobody is going to show you normal Christians that keep their traps shut and basically try to live right without going over the top because it's boring and you'll change the channel? It has sure as hell occured to Bill Maher. Even if they were representative of Christians at large, that doesn't make an unannounced extemporaneous debate with a prepared host of superior intellect any more fair. People on this site would lose their fucking minds if Rush Limbaugh made a movie about how stupid unions are in which he spent most of the time mocking factory workers for their lack of economic and political knowledge.

But again, that's the thing, stuff like Maher's should make you madder. When Maher does this, he makes you (and me because I'm an atheist) look like assholes and nobody really watches the movie and says "Hmmmm, he makes some good points here, I think I'll be atheist." What happens is that the resolve of the religious is strengthened and their biases confirmed, and Maher pockets your money. Pffft.

Posted by: Eep at October 8, 2008 10:13 AM

*Sigh*

OK, Jay, but if your guy loses by a hair, don't come bitching to me. The Left had been trying to paint Republicans as idiots since at least Ford (a bumbling doofus, can't get out of his own way, and Reagan doesn't know the difference between fantasy and reality, and Quayle can't spell "potato," and Bush I doesn't even know how a grocery scanner works, and Bush II is a moron, and McCain is a doddering old man). And as I pointed out, Dems are 3-8 in the last 11 big games. So you'd think maybe they'd try something other than expressing smug intellectual superiority as a strategy to win over the electorate, because that doesn't seem to work so well, does it?

But if they LIKE losing, well, who am I to argue?

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 8, 2008 10:31 AM

You're calling someone else smug.

Okay.

Anyway, no, I won't come bitching.

Posted by: Jay at October 8, 2008 11:04 AM

Re: The Vermillion/Boogs Debate

I'd have to agree with Vermillion's last comment, Boogs. You don't really answer any of the questions he's posed. You don't respond to any of his substantive arguments.

Example: "It's saying stupid things like "I think there are some things worth attention in the various religions, and I am not ready to just crap on them just to seem cool" and "And by stating we are "misguided", you presume that your way is the right guide in the first place. That is where I am getting this "lesser" vibe" that make it obvious how young and non-worldly you are."

This...really proves/says nothing. "Young and non-worldly" - what? First of all, that's just name-calling. Secondly, I see no reason why the comments that you use as 'proof' of this youngness and non-worldliness would support such a claim. Perhaps the first comment quoted by you might be labeled as an ad hominem attack, but it's not nearly as bad as the name-calling you have engaged in throughout the comments thread. The second is a substantive argument completely undeserving of criticism.

And this: "And also, just because I believe a certain portion of the population is misguided about a particular issue, I don't think they're lesser...I just really disagree with them. When did taking a contrary position on an issue to someone make it necessary for you to think them lesser? Grow up a bit, seriously."

That completely contradicts itself, Boogs. You said that you think religious people are misguided. Being misguided (continually misguided, as many people subscribe to religion for extended periods of time - even lifetimes) suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity or prowess, gullibility, or an inability to free oneself from the traps that organized religions have set for us. So yes, that does suggest that a religious person is lesser. For one to continue to be misguided, they must lack the intellectual motivation required to find the 'truth' or be too stupid to understand it. Either way, it's insulting.

And "grow up a bit, seriously" has never added anything to any debate EVER. That's what you say when you're twelve and fighting with your little brother. You're just flinging poop, Boogs.

Vermillion, I'll be quite frank here. I don't think you could ever have a meaningful discussion on this subject with Boogs because I don't think he's capable of competing with you intellectually. He managed to miss or ignore the meat of your arguments, and resorted time and again to name-calling. You can't win with someone like that. Sorry to see that you were so frustrated and I do hope that you will participate in these discussions in the future. I thought you cut through a lot of his bullshit and presented some very compelling questions (though you were clearly annoyed by the end...can't let somebody like Boogs get to you like that).

The truth is that when you debate with an open, rational, intelligent individual that disagrees with you about something, you leave feeling fairly satisfied. They may have persuaded you. You may have persuaded them. Most likely, you both move closer to the middle. But no matter the actual result, you respect one another and leave happy. I like the CS Lewis quote about those friends who disagree with us: "But [another type of] Friend is the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the antiself. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle...Actually (though it never seems so at the time) you modify one another's thought; out of this perpetual dogfight a community of mind and deep affection emerge." We should all be so lucky as to have the chance to learn from friends such as this - in 'real' life or even on the interwebs. I'd say this: if you leave an argument having stood your ground intelligently while managing to earn the respect or even the reluctant affection of your opponent (or, if he is unworthy, the respect of others around you), you have won, regardless of whether you changed anyone's opinion.

Posted by: tt_marie at October 8, 2008 11:14 AM

Eep, you'll be interested to know that Maher isn't into atheism, either. He views it along the same vein as religion in that it preaches certainty that there is no god, while religion preaches that there absolutely is. Maher's whole point is that doubt is humble.

Posted by: Ginger at October 8, 2008 12:57 PM

RE Eep: "Really? So statistically speaking, most Christians in the country are bible-beating evangelicals? Unbelievable."

Yeah, that's not what I wrote. Not any part of that. If you want to disagree with what I actually did write, go for it. But don't expect me to explain shit I didn't write.

The truckers that Maher talks to in the movie (have you actually seen the movie, BTW? I have.) are "normal Christians." I don't recall them identifying as "evangelicals," that's your assumption at work there. I'm not sure why he chose to talk to truckers, but as I and at least one other person observed, why shouldn't he? What makes truckers uniquely unqualified/unacceptable for the purposes of illustrating what being Christian is? Not all Christians have college degrees and live in affluent suburbs and have office jobs. Many of them are "working class." You're right that I don't know exactly what percentage that is. Maybe you could Google that and get back to us on it, the demographics of the various Christian denominations. Age, household income, occupation, etc.

Some of the comments in here call Maher to task for only talking to idiots as representatives of the various faiths and I'm saying he didn't do that. I don't assume (and I don't think Maher does either, but that may just be my interpretation of his attitude) that all religious people are stupid and that because someone isn't a "leader" in a particular denomination or a "scholar" of it that they are unfit to represent that religious denomination. In fact, few of the people he talked to seemed like idiots to me. He wasn't trying to make a scholarly treatise on religion for public television. He's trying to piss people off. Mission accomplished, apparently. I don't think his approach is unfair to religion. It's not how I would have done it, but whatever.

The proud, bible-beating know-nothing has become the public face of Christianity (the non-Catholic part of it, anyway) in this country. Our president is one of them. It is all by design. The Republican Party is the architect. It is a very calculated, deliberate effort to cultivate lifelong Republican voters. The RNC is using these people, and they are OK with it. They have no problem pimping out their beliefs to get Republican politicians elected. I think that's more of an insult to Christianity than anything Maher could possibly come up with.

If there are Christians who feel that this strategy misrepresents them, that it does not describe the majority of Christians, then they need to get busy countering this impression. Maybe it's because I'm in the Dallas area, and the bible-beating know-nothings seem to be the majority.

Posted by: Slash at October 8, 2008 1:29 PM

Slash:
You're right, that was an incorrect assumption on my part. I haven't seen the movie, so until I do I'm having to do my best to infer what it really is from what people have said about it here.

Also I agree about what the RNC has done. It's a shame. There was a time long ago when they were close enough to my personal views that I could have voted for a Republican and felt reasonably good about it. Unfortunately that time passed long before I could vote. "The Power of Nightmares" is a great documentary to watch about how and why that happened.

So I certainly rescind the evangelical statement, but I stand by the sentiment that going out and choosing average people on the street, much less seeking people you suspect will have lower than average debate skills, to answer prepared questions designed to challenge their beliefs doesn't speak to an interest in some kind of dialogue. And I definitely disagree that making people angry is what this movie was designed to do. Making people angry doesn't make you money when they have to pay $9.00 and up for the privilege of being angered, because nobody's going to do it. People may listen to radio or TV talk show hosts they hate just to see what they'll say next, but they're not going to make that outlay just to be pissed off. This movie was designed to make the (un)faithful think that it really pisses the other guys off, so THEY'LL go see it and share in the inside joke. It's basically atheistsploitation.

Posted by: Eep at October 8, 2008 2:42 PM

And if we are making such requests, I have one: If you expressively believe that there cannot be, in any shape or form, a god or gods, then YOU ARE NOT AGNOSTIC. YOU ARE ATHEIST.

Then that makes me....?? I'm Agnostic, but growing closer to becoming full-blown Atheist every day. And I don't even know how to refer to myself anymore because my understanding of those terms, as well as other people's and the terms themselves, are so muddled and ambiguous!

So I think I'll just call myself a godless heathen and be done with it. Or an Agnostheist. Let's see if that catches on.

Slash, YES. Ditto on almost everything.

When Maher does this, he makes you (and me because I'm an atheist) look like assholes and nobody really watches the movie and says "Hmmmm, he makes some good points here, I think I'll be atheist."

I really don't think he was trying to turn anyone towards Atheism, or away from religion. If I've realized that those attempts are futile, surely someone of his smug intellect has, too? You haven't seen the movie so I'll tell you that the closing monologue was meant as more of a call to arms for existing Atheists and Agnostics rather than an argument or plea for the religious to reconsider.

Who knows if anyone will even respond, but the target audience for this movie was most definitely non-believers.

Posted by: monkey_b at October 8, 2008 4:31 PM

I've always thought that it was common knowledge to not include politics and religion in a movie at the same time. Oh, right, Maher's not doing that, but it makes a hell of a good opening line, eh?

The Christian right in the US has been doing that for him so maybe there's a political position here after all; the religious conservatives are political conservatives aka social conservatives who as they believe such idiotic stuff can't possibly govern.

Actually, that may not be too far off.

Still, setting up the straw men to enjoy the spectacle of knocking them down is an ultimately boring and futile entertainment. Expectations are that An American Carol is just as dull and pointless.

It would have been a lot more interesting to examine the roots and reasons why Americans, shoot, it's certainly not just Americans, can so easily and readily believe so many ridiculous things before breakfast.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people, who believe in the literal "truth" of the Bible. Show them that their copy was printed in Akron and typeset by a guy named Norm who changed a few words "because they fit the margins" and you will hear that it was inspired by God. How do they know? They just do. Because. It's. True.

One can make fun of them all day long but since it does not disqualify them to be a greeter at Wal-Mart they can earn their daily bread, exist, procreate, and vote for a candidate who with a straight face will admit to sharing their belief. This because a) they may, in fact, believe that , or b) in their mind it's for the greater good, an equally ridiculous belief. Because. It's. True.

As the old adage says, the most dangerous con man is the one who believes what he's saying. And it's really not funny at all.

Posted by: fidlrjiffy at October 8, 2008 5:35 PM

I'm surprised at the argument from many of the theist pajibans that mayer is somehow wrong for using "idiots" to illustrate christianity in his comedy. They're funnier. Aren't you the very same people that ridicule the lowest common denominator republicans?

Its the same thing, right? Funny, the things you see when not blinded by religion.

Posted by: SAS at October 8, 2008 10:52 PM

Thanks for the words of encouragement tt_marie. Still, I am going to refrain from this kind of discourse. I am going to be soured on it for quite some time.

But, after thinking about it some more, maybe Maher did do what he says he set out to do. Consider this: as he describes it, his whole thing is that nobody can be 100% sure, right? So what does he do? He targets those people who say they ARE 100% sure, despite anything remotely contrary. Those people, for lack of a better term, are pretty much idiots.

If he had talked to someone religious that had a brain, then they would have been a lot more open-minded. They have the faculties to acknowledge their doubt and have reasoned debate. That is not what he was going for.

He wanted to show that there are indeed people who concretely believe in their version of the Bible and of Christianity; who believe so much it is to the detriment of everyone else around them.

So maybe he did EXACTLY what he said he was doing. It wasn't a serious look at faith anymore than it was a comedy poking at the retards. He wanted to show what absolute certainty looks like. And I guess he did it.

Is he still a prick? Yeah. But an unfair prick? Not so much.

Posted by: Vermillion at October 9, 2008 7:47 AM

"The most disappointing part of the movie is that Maher's better than this."

Mr. Prisco, while I think you nailed the central and fatal flaw of Religulous when you pointed out that Maher never guts up enough to talk to some learned and more sophisticated religious folks, I have to disagree with the statement I quoted above. I think the movie represents what Maher has been ever since people started paying attention to what he thought in his Politically Incorrect show. He's a sneering, snickering libertine masquerading as an intellectual left-leaning libertarian and trying to pass off his facility for a quick put-down as wit.

His certainty that doubt is the only intelligent position to hold -- a faith statement if ever there was one -- is an intellectually dishonest position that allows him to cast anyone with beliefs as by definition unintelligent. That idea doesn't walk far through history before tripping over some people who combine great minds with great faith, who would probably pat Maher on the head, give him a cookie and tell him to go play outside until the big people were done talking.

Posted by: Brett at October 9, 2008 7:53 AM

The best humor informs, often more tellingly than a straight delivery can.

I wonder if this piece holds up on those terms?

Twain / Rogers '08

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at October 9, 2008 8:49 AM

Interesting thought, Vermillion. I'd still say there's more to it than that.

I went to a Christian high school and a Lutheran undergraduate institution. While my professors and teachers were firm in thier beliefs, they were not arrogant, nor did they claim to know everything about everything. Christian scholars largely believe in the sanctity of Jesus Christ, but beyond that, they rarely agree on anything (particularly many of the things Maher discusses in his interviews)! And I have a hard time believing that any of them, even the staunchest believers, would say, if pressed, that they have no doubts whatsoever about even the basic tenants of thier faith. Unless they are straight-up lying.

And yet they have maintained these beliefs, and continue to live thier lives according to these beliefs, and teach these beliefs to others.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I know some very intelligent, thoughtful people who are true believers. And yet, they could discuss these beliefs intelligently and humbly.

I still think that Maher interviewed people who were just were not prepared to or capable of discussing these issues. And when, say, a senator is interviewed, or a religious leader, don't you think they'd be afraid to reveal any doubts in a religious documentary which might be viewed by thier constiuents or parishoners? I don't understand why Maher was dishonest about the purpose of the documentary except that he wanted religious leaders to think they were addressing followers of the same religion - specifically so they would not openly discuss the doubts they've had or have. Then he presented questions in a mocking, adverserial fashion, and so of COURSE this made the people he interviewed dig thier heels in and refuse to budge on any points they'd made. And then the rest of the people he interviewed were total idiots who didn't know why they believed what they believed and probably had never attempted to figure that out.

No, I don't think Maher went for those who unwaveringly believed in a certain religion. I think he went for the stupid folks, and folks that he could corner into saying stupid things.

Remember, the warning is about organized religion, not blind adherence to religion.

Maher himself said about the film in an interview, "Comedians have always made jokes about religion. It's a rich topic. I did when I was a young comedian, but they weren't jokes that got right to the essence of it, which is, this is dangerous and this is silly." That's religion he's talking about - not just some believers.

Posted by: tt_marie at October 9, 2008 10:02 AM

Saw it last night and it was hilarious.

Posted by: Fuel at October 9, 2008 10:16 AM

"It's that all religions are fundamentally wrong and idiotic"

Actually, you didn't hear Maher literally put his neck on the line with Islam. That was the giant elephant in the room that he didn't talk about.

"the warning is about organized religion, not blind adherence to religion."

Maher does no such thing. He thinks anyone who believes in God is stupid and he makes it very clear. As the article says, he made no attempt to speak to a true man of God (or that made the edit) who could have cut him up.

Maher's true target is blue state religion although if you believe there is a problem with organized religion, look to the Vatican. I have never sat in a church (Southern Baptist) that has taught anything other than the gospel of Jesus. I have never heard hate and the congregations are usually of many races.

Maher had no pretense of doing anything other than a slice job to line his own pockets from his own flock paying the way like any other self-serving TV evangelist.

The east and west coast, mostly, don't seem to understand that 70+% believe in God and most of them attend church. I'm curious why it is that so many celebrities are married by priests or rabbis.

If you don't have Faith, it's because you haven't sought it out. It doesn't come to you.

Posted by: dave at October 11, 2008 2:26 PM

Sorry, but you lost at "there was no thoughtful debate about evolution". Seriously? Should he have thoughtfully discussed the "possibility" that dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside Barney Rubble et al?

Posted by: Noreally at October 12, 2008 11:17 PM

religion is based on lies (there is no god). Maher doesnt cover up this fact. If you don't believe that (i do) than it may seem like he's pompous.
If you have an intellectual debate abotu religion,then you are actually saying that religion deserves honest thought abotu wether God exists. It doesn't to me.

Poeple say this to me all the time, "you have to believe in something". I do, and i believe in humanity, not some supernatural being who never mentioned dinasaurs. Bravo to Religulious.

Posted by: Lukasz R. at October 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Brian, this is one of the best, most insightful reviews I've ever read. Maher is a real asshole, who walks around with little facts, finds complete idiots to "debate" with (similar to the world heavyweight champion beating up a girl scout), has little to no real facts of his own (the issue was never based on facts), and acts all high and mighty for doing it. Smug fuck. Thanks for ripping him a new asshole. Keep reviewing.

Posted by: George at October 26, 2008 11:29 PM