comment #1

JD says ...

I've been a big Maher fan for a long time, but this a very primitive, unfair, simple-minded movie. The worst part? It treats its philosophical simplicity as if it's groundbreaking insight. All that said, it is a very funny film.

comment #2

coxcable says ...

It's funny that Maher would use a spiritual medium like cinema to rail against religion because the values of cinema are almost the same as the values of religion. That's why neurotic Jews and guilty Catholics are so good at directing. Both religion and cinema require faith, hope and general love of mankind. Both work best when steeped in some kind of moral urgency. Both use a sense of fantasy and metaphor to tap into the basic fears and desires of the human condition.

With Religulous, Maher is essentially telling a story that says stories are all bullshit. And that's what makes the smug SOB such a fraud.

comment #3

Marcello says ...

Cox: while I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, at least it's thought provoking. And as to your last point, it may be that in fact Maher DOESN'T believe in storytelling, and that's part of the problem with this scattershot movie -- he really can't relate to the experience of being moved by a story, so he lacks the impulse and/or ability to create one. He might have the same reaction to someone being moved by a Fellini film as he does to a person of religious faith: "What's wrong with you, stupid? Am I the only one that understands that what happened on the screen was just pretend?"

comment #4

arch451 says ...

I haven't seen Religulous so I won't defend it. But I don't see White's point about the documentary being one sided, because doesn't the title explicitly communicate that the point of the movie is to show religion being ridiculous? I wouldn't walk into this movie expecting it to promote mysticism, as White says it should.

And to coxcable: the power of film is that what people take away from it varies from person to person. Everyone has morals, even atheists like myself. Morals are not the domain of religion. Einstein himself said, " man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Also, the difference between religion and movies is that when people watch a movie they are affected by it even though they know it is fiction. In church, people believe the stories actually occured. If you think fiction is history, then you are the fraud.

comment #5

MartinBlank says ...

In other news, Armond White wants you kids to get off his lawn. Just like in that Bresson film.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

'"It is intellectually slovenly to demean religion based on what goes wrong in secular society," writes N.Y. Press critic Armond White.'

But it's ok to demean single parents and homosexuals based on what goes wrong in non-secular society?

"Maher became a theology expert around the time Jon Stewart became a political analyst; it's a hoodwink akin to the moment the Reagan administration registered ketchup as a vegetable in public school cafeterias."

Yes, they can't be qualified to analyze issues of the day, unlike a journalist for a paper which lied for Bush.

JD: "I've been a big Maher fan for a long time, but this a very primitive, unfair, simple-minded movie. "

Given who's been running the country for the last eight years, I think it's a fair reaction.

cox: "With Religulous, Maher is essentially telling a story that says stories are all bullshit. And that's what makes the smug SOB such a fraud."

You have a point. He should pretend his bs story is real, and then after enough people get killed in battle over it, make a joke about it being untrue. That will make him less of a fraud.

comment #7

Devin Faraci says ...

I have to wonder why we keep putting up with the dumb concept of 'respecting other people's beliefs,' since that obviously ONLY applies to religion. I'm sure if I told Armond White I believed black people were savages he wouldn't respect that, and he shouldn't. But I'm supposed to respect some Bronze Age blatant bullshit?

comment #8

Howlingman says ...

I've never bought the argument that Religion is the cause of the evil that men do, and if we all stopped with the Jesus-Mohammed-Budda worship the world would be all smiles and sunshine and ice cream. The sad sorry fact is that we've never lacked for reason to murder each other, wage war on each other, and basically fuck things up for each other -- Religion's just the easiest excuse, but far from the only one.

comment #9

duck dodgers says ...

Bill Maher, I knew Luis Bunuel, I've seen most of Luis Bunuel's movies, you sir, are no Luis Bunuel.

comment #10

ZayTonday says ...

In response to JD's post: The whole point of the film is the fact that in comparison to religion, philosophical simplicity IS groundbreaking insight which makes religion look quite ridiculous. Hence the title.

comment #11

duck dodgers says ...

When you're 8, you think it's a big daddy in the sky behind all the mysteries. When you're 12, you figure out that there are no mysteries. When you're 40, you realize it's all a mystery and always has been.

Bill Maher is 12.

comment #12

cwratliff says ...

I don't get that the film is denying the "spiritual" or the "mystery" of anything. The film is about doubt, and about asking questions about religion.

I was fully expecting, based on some of the reviews, that the film was going to be way more condescending-- some of the descriptions of the "truckers' chapel" sequence made it sound like he was just going to paint them as a bunch of rubes, but in fact, he treats them with honesty and respects them enough to be upfront with them. To read some of the critics' reactions, one would assume that this is a film that makes fun of them or mocks them after the fact when they're not around. Instead, he doesn't pretend to share their beliefs, but he also doesn't insult them (unless you think asking them questions or stating that he doesn't believe the same things they do is somehow an insult.)

This isn't a film where Maher is going around angrily barking at people or ambushing hapless security guards-- there aren't a lot of "gotcha" moments. He's talking to people, asking questions, and making the occasional joke. And for a critic like Armond White, who spends each week treating the films he doesn't like as if they are an affront to decency itself, the idea that he thinks "other people's views" should be respected rings kind of hollow. Maher is asking big questions about a big topic, whereas Armond White writes hysterical weekly rants against Judd Apatow and anyone else who's movies he doesn't care for.

comment #13

shanana says ...

It is not the story that falters, it's the storytellers. Listening to Maher talk about religion is like listening to second grader. His over simplification is startling on one level, understandable on the other (he is so self-consumed, he can't even see beyond his nose). He speaks with such certainty, never to admit that we know the punchline line as well: nobody knows what lies on the other side. Nobody.

Religion is at the heart of all conflict? The Civil War, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Cold War,Vietnam, Fascism, Communism, just to name a few. Just juxtapose the word religion and politics, and you have the new world paradigm.

No, the problems of the World are created by fallible people, and their greatest weakness: certainty. Christians who are certain Homosexuality is evil. Nietzche was certain God was dead, and there was a super-human race. Marx was certain that religion was the opiate of the masses. Yet without religion: no philosophy, no math, no science, no medicine, no music.

Faith is to be tested, beliefs are to be questioned, and I don't think people in the modern world give half a thought to mortality, philosophy or religion. We're all too busy preoccupying ourselves with newest creature comfort. Most of which are predicated on scientific discoveries made by people of faith.

If Mohammed rode out of the desert with a scroll full equations in a mathematical language that had yet to be discovered-who would have followed that? If christ pointed out to the gatherers that he was not casting a demon out, but curing epilepsy -who would have understood that two thousand years ago?

At least Armond White calls it for what it is: simplistic.

comment #14

Mr. Muckle says ...

Agree, Jeff, and nice point about going "into the mystic." This "mystic" is a transcendence of the limiting confines of rationality, where reason ultimately comes up short. It's not just fairy tales. Mythology, essentially just stories (as others have noted) has (best case) the purpose of revealing those limitations and enabling that transcendence.

But I question this statement, "There's nothing slovenly about applying rational thought to absurd religious mythology, which is all that Maher's doing."

How does anyone know that a myth is absurd? Do you enter with that conclusion and then use rationality to make fun of it? That's useless and, yes, lazy.

Having examined a myth, most probably we find it is metaphorical, meant to teach something and to enable or awaken something deep in the psyche. It might be absurd to take it literally, but it is equally absurd to make judgments about it without having penetrated into that mystic oneself.

Maher, clever as he might be, is a materialistic lowbrow and by no means awake in that sense.

comment #15

Majorian99 says ...

Well put arch451. Absolutely agree with all your arguments and statements. And very well written by the way. Like channeling Dashiell Hammett.

QED I think...

comment #16

LFF says ...

I spend a lot of time penetrating mystics myself. pleasurable.

comment #17

arturobandini2 says ...

If you saw Maher on the Daily Show last week, then you know that he doesn't claim to be an absolutist or an atheist. His movie has a brave premise and I wish it had lived up to its potential. The Michael Moore-style editing (punctuating every statement with sarcastic sound bites and movie clips) hurt it tremendously, I thought. The seriousness nature of the questions Maher raised deserved more sobriety and reflection.

At least he had one very inspired insight. Non-believers make up a very large minority group -- 19% of Americans, wasn't it? It we formed our own lobbyist group to keep religion out of the government., we could effectively neutralize the Evangelical influence.

Which begs the question: Are agnostics and atheists passionate about their (non)beliefs? Or does their stance merely reflect their inability to make a commitment?

comment #18

arch451 says ...

First of all, arturobandini2, atheism is not a belief in the same way that religion is a belief. It is more like a rational conclusion. Saying they are not commited or passionate about their belief is like saying you are not committed or passionate about your belief that birds can fly.

What does make me passionate--or angry to be more precise--is when religion gets in the way of reality. So, yes, I could potentially get passionately involved in some sort of atheist lobbyist group to keep religion out of government policy.

comment #19

Majorian99 says ...

Keep talking arch451. Your thoughtfulness and insight is refreshing...

comment #20

arch451 says ...

Thanks, Majorian99.

comment #21

shanana says ...

There's nothing "rational" about the conclusion. It's no more rational than the idea that we are spinning on a rock, stuck in pull created by gravity, around a star floating in nothing with many other stars which are grouped together in galaxies. My mere existence is based on a lifeline that extends all the way back to the beginning of this planet which is millions upon millions of years old. There is no rationality in any of this. Don't fool yourself, reality is very subjective.

comment #22

arturobandini2 says ...

Well spoken, arch451. I too am willing to mobilize to keep church separate from state. What I find fascinating is the belated call to arms that Maher makes. We've known how dangerous the Fundie faction is for a good 20 years. We may not take the subject of faith seriously, but we should've been taking the faith healers very seriously.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

shanana: "Religion is at the heart of all conflict? The Civil War, World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Cold War,Vietnam, Fascism, Communism, just to name a few. Just juxtapose the word religion and politics, and you have the new world paradigm."

The Civil War=progressives fighting redneck Christians who believed slavery was ordained by God. WWI=white imperialists fighting each other over was destined to subjugate people of color, based on a messianic interpretation of their empires. WWII=blonde people(and people pretending they were blonde) working with the Catholic Church to bring back pogroms. The Cold War=preventing those pinkos from wiping out our "Judeo-Christian" values. [Hence the insertion of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.] Communism=people using the same methods as fundy religion, but not calling it religion, in order to pretend they were somehow different. Fascism is making the state the center of worship.

"Nietzche was certain God was dead, and there was a super-human race."

Nietzche didn't believe in the Holocaust, if that's what you're arguing. Wagner did, however, and ironically invoked old deities as part of his argument.

"Yet without religion: no philosophy, no math, no science, no medicine, no music."

Huh? That's not what happened during the Dark Ages...

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Forgot to add that WW2 also=some Japanese Emperor claiming he was a deity and that killing Asians of other races in his name was fine and dandy.

comment #25

shanana says ...

C'mon D.Z., I think you are smart guy, but you take the quick quips too far. You're doing a disservice to me and you, we could have a real conversation here. You're being intellectually dishonest about the subject at hand, which deserves greater care than you are giving it. My statement about Nietzche was directed at the notion of bigotry and intolerance being taught outside of religious ideals. We could go into further detail regarding outside political movements like nihilism and futurism that also were not religious, yet offered nothing positive either. Your points on fascism and Communism only back up what I am trying to say: people are flawed, institutions are flawed, they don't have to be religious, or done in the name of a God. they can be done in the name of the "greater good."

Your explanations of the World Wars was beyond the pale in truth and insight. Ask yourself the simple question: Why did the United States fight in either World War? Was it God? If it was, then you're right. If it wasn't, well, maybe there's more to it. Don't over-simplify just to score cheap points. Deep seeded nationalism or regionalism and religion are not the same thing. Being a nationalist and religious are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist. But recognize what you are saying: nowhere in the "Judeo-Christian" Bible does it say slavery is tolerable, war is justified, abortion is wrong, Communism must be destroyed, or God is an old man looking down on you from his cloud.

The truth of the matter is, all sciences were born out of pursuit of the greater truth. No religion, no modern man. Why do you think it was the religious leaders who were considered the doctors, the scientists, and the scholars throughout history?

Misinterpretation is not solely a "religious" side effect, it is a human one, because we are deeply flawed. Nietzche didn't preach the holocaust, but an adamant supporter of his did interpet it that way.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

"Why did the United States fight in either World War? Was it God?"

Well, the first one was never really our war in the first place. We were just cleaning up other countries' messes. The second one ended up being our war, but I don't doubt that anti-Semitism played a part in us staying out as long as the Europeans did. If there was a religious
reason, I imagine it's that Manifest Destiny mentality which kicked in at the end.

"But recognize what you are saying: nowhere in the "Judeo-Christian" Bible does it say slavery is tolerable, war is justified, abortion is wrong, Communism must be destroyed, or God is an old man looking down on you from his cloud."

Well, people certainly interpret it that way.

comment #27

shanana says ...

"Well, people certainly interpret it that way."

Exactly. Just like they interpreted Nietzche as saying ethnic cleansing is necessary, or Iraq was involved in the attacks on 9/11.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

shanana: "Exactly. Just like they interpreted Nietzche as saying ethnic cleansing is necessary, or Iraq was involved in the attacks on 9/11."

The difference is that the religious encourage those sorts of interpretations.

comment #29

Carl LaFong says ...

Speaking as a practicing Roman Catholic with an intellectual curiosity, I'll take thoughtful considerations and carefully measured reason of Dr. Jonathan Miller any day over Maher. Check out his Brief History of Disbelief sometime; it will elevate and enlighten you far more than the Boratish potshots. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0429323/

comment #30

Yuval says ...

The condescension of true believers, there's nothing quite like it. shanana, first you seem to be truly against over simplification, though you are compassionate towards Maher, since he "can't see past his own nose". You truly are a gentle soul and the finder of lost children. But then you write that the problem in the world is certainty, for example: "Christians who are certain Homosexuality is evil". Can you look past your own nose to the overwhelming majority of religious leaders (not just Christians) today and throughout human history that held and hold on to this belief?
You are right that certainty is the cause of evil in the world. But can you deny the simple fact (not over simplified) that for most religious people that is the basic role religion plays - as an over simplifier of certainty.
Concerning all this discussion of suspension of disbelief in films and stories in general - yes, someone who is so in love with a Fellini movie that he believes it is the truth created from a higher plane of existence is ridiculous. My opinion. But I do enjoy movies, can I enjoy stories and movies and still think that the belief that they are created by god is ridiculous? Or will that go against the true values of cinema and will be a spit on the grave of Bresson?

comment #31

shanana says ...

"Can you look past your own nose to the overwhelming majority of religious leaders (not just Christians) today and throughout human history that held and hold on to this belief? "

Yeah, I can.

comment #32

shanana says ...

"The condescension of true believers, there's nothing quite like it...You truly are a gentle soul and the finder of lost children."

Hypocrite

comment #33

shanana says ...

"The difference is that the religious encourage those sorts of interpretations."

There is NO difference.

comment #34

Yuval says ...

Okay, so I guess you're only defending the minority of religious people and religious officials that don't look for religion for certainties. Rock on, I'm all for it. From your earlier post I was under the impression that you were defending religion as a whole.
I wasn't being hypocritical, I do believe that condescension that comes from certainty (like the one religion provides to it believers) is unique. I'm not ruling out all condescension, that would be too certain for me.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but if it claims that everything wrong that ever happened through the history of time was because of religion then I am right there with you with your critique. If not, then this point has nothing to do with this movie or this post but to make you feel good about the fact that there were other factors that contributed to wars other than religion.

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

Carl: "Speaking as a practicing Roman Catholic with an intellectual curiosity, I'll take thoughtful considerations and carefully measured reason of Dr. Jonathan Miller any day over Maher."

Considering that your religion was willing to execute a guy for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, I'm not sure you have a right to question Maher's reasoning skills.

shanana: "There is NO difference."

Did anyone get killed for disagreeing with Nietzche's opinions? Did any Philosophy professor ever start a war?

comment #36

shanana says ...

"Did anyone get killed for disagreeing with Nietzche's opinions? Did any Philosophy professor ever start a war?"

His name was Hitler. I don't think he was a philosophy major though....

"Considering that your religion was willing to execute a guy for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun, I'm not sure you have a right to question Maher's reasoning skills."

This country, your government has killed innocent people. I feel shame for both, but I don't think just because someone is an atheist, they are above such illogical behavior.

comment #37

shanana says ...

"I haven’t seen the film yet, but if it claims that everything wrong that ever happened through the history of time was because of religion then I am right there with you with your critique. If not, then this point has nothing to do with this movie or this post but to make you feel good about the fact that there were other factors that contributed to wars other than religion. "

Douchebag hypocrite

comment #38

Yuval says ...

"Douchebag hypocrite"

Douchebag hypocrite !@#$

Did I win?

comment #39

shanana says ...

"Did I win?"

Congratulations, you're the biggest pile of sh@!!

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

shanana: Hitler was an ex-soldier, not a philosopher. He also co-opted some Asian religious symbols, and tried to pretend they were a symbol of white power. Nice try, though.

comment #41

shanana says ...

"shanana: Hitler was an ex-soldier, not a philosopher. He also co-opted some Asian religious symbols, and tried to pretend they were a symbol of white power. Nice try, though."

It is a well documented fact that Netzche's teachings influenced Hitler's ideology, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenious, you know that. Nevermind the fact that Christian Philosophies are taught in any basic Philosophy classes, I ignored that and went for the obvious.

Hitler was a failed "artist." Now you know, artists do start wars.