Holy Controversy: Religulous Reviews Hit Web

It is going to be quite fun watching film critics in the MSM tackle Religulous, the anti-religions (re: not anti-organized religions) documentary from director Larry Charles (Borat) and Bill Maher. Reviewing this film practically demands that one states his/her personal beliefs—sort of like with Iraq War docs, but, you know, bigger—and judging from two of the first reader reviews on AICN, Maher doesn’t leave much wiggle room: it’s the “you do” or “you don’t” proposition. And unlike Ben Stein’s Expelled, Religulous will have a much higher media profile when it’s released this October.

The first reviewer is an evangelical Christian who’s a fan of Maher’s canceled Politically Incorrect talk-show. While the film offered “chuckles,” the reviewer goes on to say that Maher’s take on religion(s) is ultimately one-sided. But isn’t that Maher’s point? There is no middle ground? Moreover, the reviewer took issue with the “mission statement” that Maher makes at the film’s conclusion (spoiler alert)…

“[Maher] dismisses all of Christianity based on the supernatural events in the Bible, which he says couldn’t have happened, and complains that it doesn’t present itself the way he personally wants it to. …The kicker is the ending. (MAJOR SPOILER - I guess): After 90 minutes of interviews, Bill states that all religion is evil and must be destroyed for the good of humankind. He comes to this conclusion based on the Koran’s and the Bible’s predictions of destruction of the world at the “end times” and feels that these religions want the world to be destroyed because God or Allah has ordained it.”

I wonder if “destroy” is actually said. The other review is from a “lapsed Catholic” who is neither a “believer” or “nonbeliever.” This reviewer expected a documentary that clowned people like Borat, but was struck by its seriousness. He says that Maher doesn’t victimize anyone, and even though he tends to “preach” his atheism, he doesn’t cut off the religious people he interviews in the film (including someone (not Seth Rogen) from the Church of Cannabis).

“All in all, I must say that I really enjoyed the film. If you are like me and go into this film expecting another “Borat”, you are either going to get more or less than what you bargained for, all depending on your perspective of religion (obviously). I will also say though, that if you are looking to be offended, the odds are pretty good.”

In a recent issue of TIME magazine, a cover story on Mark Twain delved into that man’s candid remarks on religion(s) and atheism, which sounded a lot like Maher’s today. Given the amount of time that has passed since Twain’s passing, I highly doubt this film will change the minds of any viewers over the age of 25.

Discuss: What do you make of the “spoiler mission statement”? How do you think the MSM will treat/review this documentary? How do you expect it to perform at the box office?

About the Author

  • b-nasty
    religion is a thorny issue for some people (pun intended).

    i'm expecting critics to focus less on the quality of the film, and more on the theological arguments it provokes. I don't know how I feel about this.
  • Hunter Stephenson
    @ b-nasty

    See, I expect many to skirt on the issues of the doc and talk more about "balance," organized religions (which is the easy out) and Maher's attitude.
  • Robert
    I think I know what he (Maher) is getting at based on that description of the "mission statement," but I doubt the reviewer's brain can allow him to actually "get" it. It's very difficult if not damn near impossible to shake someone's worldview. They'd sooner go insane with circular logic, rhetorical gymnastics, and bloody violence (if necessary) which is kind of the point of this film I think.
  • A Better Class of Criminal
    As an Agnostic, this movie sounds intriguing... yet I'm not necessarily a fan of Maher's humor.
    So is this actually going to be funny or is it just going to be like attending a lecture I don't even need to have given to me?
  • Robert
    I would like, if I may, to replace the word "rhetorical" with "semantic"...on second thought maybe they'll both work...either way...

    There Will Be Histrionics.
  • If the first reviewer was that big of a fan of Maher's old show Politically Incorrect, maybe someone should let him know about Maher's current show Real Time. The new season starts up Aug 29 11:00 ET on HBO.

    And chances are good Maher really did say "destroy."
  • jackal27
    I'm not a fan of rallying hate to either side of this issue, so the "mission statement" ticks me off.
  • Nathan
    Well the MSM is generally conservative and Bill Mahr will probably be the Michael Moore of the week and he will be vilified all over the news for it since Christians/Muslims/Jews hate anyone who attacks their beliefs in anyway. I expect it to come in somewhere between a Michael Moore film and Expelled. Granted that leaves a pretty wide margin.
  • Chris
    Although I dont believe religion is intended to eventully destroy mankind I do believe that it might. I am not a fan of Mahr but I do believe he is ttempting to make a good point in the film. Complete devotion to any faith can be dangerous. Why can't we all just get along?
  • Chris
    By the way, /film is the best website. I go to it at least 2 to 3 times a day. Peter, you are doing a wonderful job.
  • BA
    Same old Maher - A potical comedian with no knowledge of original languages, translations into receptor languages or cultural hermeneutics, provides child-level insight into issues above his head.

    Like taking financial advice from a broke man who's glanced at a couple of books about money and is therefore competent to promulgate the masses.

    Sparkle and fade.
  • J.D.
    Hitler also wanted religion abolished. Religion was -- and continues to be -- a threat to all-powerful government. The founders put this nation "under God" for a reason. They knew that politicians seek to BE god. Recall that all the kings of the Old World considered themselves to be "chosen by god."

    Really, it's only the power-hungry who despise religion. The "threat" of religion is one big myth. No one will force me to believe anything.... unless, of course, the government forces me to.
  • Jon
    @JD
    "The founders put this nation “under God” for a reason."

    the under god term was created in the 50's. Last time I checked, the county wasn't founded the same decade Tom Hanks was born.

    Also, you should check US Constitution, it has no mention of god anywhere. And that was done on purpose.
  • ariel wollinger
    more important is:

    how will FSM treat/review this documentary?
  • FiNiX
    "Really, it’s only the power-hungry who despise religion."

    I don't DESPISE religion, per se, but it does scare the crap out of me because it makes pretty much NO sense. I'm most certainly not power hungry.
  • Henry Jones Jr
    J.D., I see it quite a bit differently. If anything, religion is a tool of the powerful to keep the regular folk at ease. What better way to keep poor from rebelling than to tell them that there's another life after this one and that they have to behave in order to see it? That's the same reason you have the option of accepting Jesus and being forgiven of your sins, no matter what you're guilty of. After all, if you were beyond hope of saving, you'd be left with nothing to lose, and then be tempted for greater sins. Religion keeps the 'have-nots' in line, and allows the 'haves' to do whatever they want. For the powerful and the power-hungry, religion is their best friend.
  • FiNiX
    @Henry

    I've thought that before too. Religion looks like a privative form of government to me. (I know that's I rather harsh thing to say, but I've gotta' be honest...)
  • EKM
    I waffle back and forth on how I feel about Bill Maher. I mostly admire his candor and biting cynicism. But, though my politics are fairly close to his, we're not fully on the same page, and sometimes he gets a little too caught up in his own bullshit. Which is also why I find it virtually impossible to read Christopher Hutchins works, despite loving Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

    Also, though I am a secular humanist, I have my doubts about Religulous. I fear it will wind up being far too dogmatic and oversimplified like so many other socially conscious documentaries of late (King Corn, the Michael Moore films). I may agree from the outset with the hypothesis being put forward in the films, but I know the detail, breadth and nuance of the facts and see that they are being culled and simplified for the films. And so they wind up being rarely more than a self-congratulatory handjob for the people who already agree with the concept, and vilified and used as propaganda by those who disagree.

    I'll reserve judgment until I see Religulous, but, for my money, I doubt it could be better than the 2 part documentary Dawkins did for the BBC a couple years ago: Root of All Evil?
  • Gaius
    @ JD

    Religion is a despot's best friend.

    I mean, seriously. You can't get rid of religion no matter how hard you try because people will always want to believe that they will be ok after they take their last breath. People who want power are mostly realistic in that they know they can't achieve the level of power they desire unless they make it seem as if they have god's blessing. GW Bush, anyone?

    I think you should rephrase your comment as being "only INSANE power-hungry people want to destroy religion and thus be gods"

    On another note, I do think that Maher has a point in some sense.
    The reason that a person or persons would want to destroy the world or wipe out humanity would in all likelihood be based in religious thinking.
  • Gaius
    @ EKM

    Fellow secular humanist here too, and I agree, Root of all Evil was terrible and melodramatic.
  • If religion is the best friend of the power hungry, why was organized religion outlawed by Chairma Mao and Stalin. Your point is well taken, than it can be used to gain power, but it is not merely a tool used to be the opium of the masses. Study the rise of Christianity, it was small bands of people who supported ans spread the religion, it was not until 300 A.D that it became state sponsored. Also, claims along the lines of religion that make no sense are simple minded, not religions. Please provide further explination that religions make no sense. I believe in Christianity because I believe it is true, not because I need a crutch. I have lived most of my life without it, but am now convinced its true. Look to passages such as Daniel 11, which hundreds of years before the events take places predict with great accuracy the rise and fall of alexander the great. The bible is hard to believe, but I fall back on the words of Pascal wager. If I believe in God, and Im wrong, then who cares.
  • L. Ron Hubbard
    Let Maher destroy other religions - mine will stand the test of time. After all, it was I who single-handedly defeated Xenu and achieved eternal life on this planet... oh wait.
  • Thats pretty funny
  • Also, the idea that religion makes no sense requires some idea of what sense is. How do we come to know what has meaning. Does science dictate what meaning is? Take, for example, if you are a father. Does your relatioship with your child have meaning? If sciece dictates meaning, then how can we trust science. How can you trust your own thoughts, as they are simply chemical processes. If science is all theie is, your interaction with your child is merely a biological and chemical set of responses, interpreted by your brain which releases hormons which illicit certain feelings. How can we trust these processes, when the only way to validate the validity of science is more science?
  • jonathan
    @andrew

    Because Mao and Stalin established their own religions -- the worship of themselves and their parties -- just look at all the statues and monuments built in their names.
  • FiNiX
    "Please provide further explination that religions make no sense."

    Please offer evidence that religion makes sense.

    "Look to passages such as Daniel 11, which hundreds of years before the events take places predict with great accuracy the rise and fall of alexander the great."

    Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you Daniel 11: "And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him."

    Where does it mention ol' Alexander? Am I missing something?
  • FiNiX
    Oh, I am missing something. Sorry.
  • Jonathan, my point was that religion is actually a threat to the state. Christians in the Roman empire were considered a threat, just like in Russia. You can not make a blanket statement that religion is the opium of the masses, because true religous freedom is not desirable for those is charge.
  • FiNiX
    "Christians in the Roman empire were considered a threat"

    That's because Christianity was not the religion of Rome.
  • FiNiX
    "your interaction with your child is merely a biological and chemical set of responses, interpreted by your brain which releases hormons which illicit certain feelings."

    Correct. Does that make that interaction any less valid?
  • VegaBro
    I dont really have an opinion on religion either way, but I would be much more likely to see a documentary conducted by Richard Dawkins than this guy, because, from what I've seen, Maher seems more interested in offending and belittling people than making his point. And frankly, Dawkins seems far more intelligent. I mean its really not that hard to dupe people who believe in religion because, for the most part, they are quite stupid. What I'm saying is, I'd rather see something more like An Inconvenient Truth than Borat when it comes to something like this. I just dont see anyone taking it seriously
  • Finix, point well taken. but your missing my point, in that while some governments may use religion to help their power, not all religion is simply used to manipulate. My point was that Christianity flourished in an opressive enviornment becuase people believed it was true, not because it was forced on them. In response to the father-child interaction, it does not make it any less valid, but does it have meaning. My point was how do we come to define meaning?
  • Watanabex
    the world will look up and shout save us! and I'll whisper: no.
  • Watanabex
    i think its funny how all the people who think religious people are stupid dont stop to think that they behave the same way as religious people who think people who dont think as they do are also stupid

    theres nothing new under our sun
  • FiNiX
    "while some governments may use religion to help their power, not all religion is simply used to manipulate."

    That's true, but some of it is.

    "it does not make it any less valid, but does it have meaning." (That sentence should end with a question mark.)

    Nothing has meaning, IMO. I think we're here by happenstance, not divine intervention. But so long as we're here, I'm gonna' enjoy life.
  • KeanE
    In my opinion Yay God..screw Bill Maher... :p
  • @BA

    Child-level insight? Isn't that all that is needed? I was only 7 when I got in trouble for spotting logic problems the Book of Mormon, and did I mention I got kicked out of Catechism for saying that the sacrament was a form of cannabilism (I was 11). Using history(questionable at that) and not logic leads to obvious fallacy.

    Also your 'financial advice' comment is embarassing. That is called Ad hominem. Try addressing the argument at hand instead of just Maher bashing.
  • godbot
    jesus christ, i can't wait to see this god damn movie.
  • FiNiX
    "Look to passages such as Daniel 11, which hundreds of years before the events take places predict with great accuracy the rise and fall of alexander the great."

    Okay, I'm not an expert on history or theology, but even if Daniel 11 DOES predict Alexander with accuracy, that does not affect the validity of the rest of the Bible.

    Every religion is supported by so-called miracles, and every religion contradicts every other religion, so obviously, they can't all be true despite the fact that they're all supported by miracles.

    "The bible is hard to believe, but I fall back on the words of Pascal wager."

    You can't choose to believe something "just in case." That isn't real belief.
  • Murry
    Because there truly is no rational reason to believe in god, I’m looking forward to seeing this movie.
  • Sid Eschenbach
    Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Maher and many others have said it far better than I, but can we really be taking any religion seriously in 2008, and isn't it way past time we stopped being PC about this silliness? The time for trying to understand life, society, our planet and the universe through the celebration of ignorance and superstition has long since past, and if events in the Middle East aren't enough by themselves to convince a mind of that fact... then that mind simply doesn't want to be convinced. Go Bill!
  • Jim McDash
    Wow dude if I saw a face likethat in the clouds I would like totally FREAK OUT

    JT
    www.FireMe.To/udi
  • Why does belief in God constitute immediate dismissal?

    Everyone starts with a presupposition that can not necessarily be "proven". You either start with there is a God and build your views on that or you don't.

    2 Corinthians 4:18 "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal."

    Christians start with a belief in the unseen and the spiritual. Atheists or agnostics start with a belief in the senses, science, and research. We are are looking at the world through a different set of glasses. I don't believe we can hope to understand one another beliefs but we can choose to respect each other. Jesus is everything to me and has given me meaning, hope, and purpose in life. I do believe in Him and hope one day those who read this will as well but I don't presume that all will.
  • charlie
    "He[Bill Maher] comes to this conclusion based on the Koran’s and the Bible’s predictions of destruction of the world at the “end times” and feels that these religions want the world to be destroyed because God or Allah has ordained it."

    1 Nephi 22:23
    …those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil…are those who must be consumed as stubble…

    Mormon 4:5 (God uses the wicked to punished the wicked)
    But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.
  • yarman
    I was lucky enough to see this film last Friday at the Traverse City Film Festival (first film to sell out among 70+ shows). Maher is a rationalist, I guess. He begins the film standing in the ruins of Megiddo (Armegeddon) in Israel. His main point is that the world's leading religions believe in some form of end times, but for the last 50 years we have had the weapons to make those myths SELF-FULFILLING prophesies. Yes, Maher & Larry Charles (director) were very one-sided. Yes, Maher is preachy regarding his own perspective. But they intercut archival footage and insert wise-ass captions for great comedic effect.

    Maher gives each interviewee opportunity to share their perspective on their religion. More often than not, it makes them look a little crazy. Some of the keenest insight of wacko Christian fundamentalists comes from two Catholic priests. Larry Charles participated in a very enlightening Q&A with Michael Moore and the audience after the film. He is a very smart man, admittedly agnostic, who seemed very knowledgeable about various religions.

    All in all, it is a worthy film that should start a very important and overdue dialogue in America.
  • andrew
    Finix, two things. First, the passage in Daniel 11 is not a so called miracle. It is histority predicted in great detail 400 years before it occured. My question for you is how you will respond to this. You can say it does not validate the rest of the bible, but consider the outcome of that decision. Who else but someone with a detailed knowledge of the future could have predicted those events (i.e. God). Second, you are right in saying that not all religions can be true. There is an absolute truth, and any one who studies reilgion can see that not all can be true. For example muslims contend it was Judas on the cross, not Christ. Either it was Christ, or it wasnt. They both cant be true. But you refer to so called miracles, annd that all claim to be supernatural. Which is true. But you have not adressed my question, which is how did the author of Daniel 11 know that those events would transpire?
    Finally, I do not believe in Christianity because of Pascals wager, it simply gives me comfort in knowing if I am wrong nothing but nothingness awaits me. I am not asking you to belive in all reigions, what Christianity asks you to do is to come face to face with the reality of the historical Christ, and his claims to be God.
  • Curious
    A couple of Jewish guys saying they want Christianity and Islam destroyed, I wonder if it's okay to get rid of their religion as well ?
  • alphgeek
    Two small rebuttals:

    1/ J.D.: I'm not sure where you get your information regarding Hitler wanting religion eliminated but I'd like to see some evidence of what you claim.

    To my understanding, much of the Third Reich's power came from its affiliation with the Christian church, particularly the Catholic church. You do realise that all German soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Wehrmacht had the phrase "Gott mit Uns" emblazoned on their uniform belt buckles? "God with Us"?

    Hitler was also a believer in faith in schools - for instance, refer to this quote:

    "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
    -- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933

    2/ Ethan: No argument today with your premise regarding evidence - despite the usual convention that the onus for providing evidence generally falls upon those making the claim - but how did you decide that your vision of the unseen and spiritual is the correct one, as opposed to belief in Zeus, Ras Tafari, Horus, Allah, Huehueteotl, etc.?

    Many atheists respect a believer's right to believe, but object when that belief intrudes on other's right to NOT believe. This would include regulations or laws based on an individual's faith being applied to all, such as "teach the controversy" type exercises to implant ID in science classes.
  • yarman
    to Curious:
    Maher was raised Catholic, which the film discusses at length. The film spared no religion, including Judaism.
  • J.D. Says: "Hitler also wanted religion abolished. Religion was — and continues to be — a threat to all-powerful government. The founders put this nation “under God” for a reason. They knew that politicians seek to BE god. Recall that all the kings of the Old World considered themselves to be “chosen by god.”

    Really, it’s only the power-hungry who despise religion. The “threat” of religion is one big myth. "

    Are you actually being SERIOUS?! HAHAHAha
    Amazing how you built something in your mind to explain something so wrong.
    Besides the known-to-everyone fact that "Under God" was never used by the "founders" as you call them, that's not your most overwhelming mistake.

    Religion is a THREAT to all powerful government? You mean the same all powerful government that worked with the catholic inquisition in Europe for CENTURIES, to burn books and kill dissidents before education could reach the people and they created a revolution against their closed system?

    Or the same all powerful government that justifies a good vs. evil foreign policy on the word of Jesus?

    Historically, religion gives all the answers to the little people, and discourages questioning the word, so they won't THINK too much. That ignorance allows for easy control, easy brainwashing through the media and rumors.

    Religion is the most efficient belief system to make the masses juuust perfect to stop questioning authority and take in the orders like little babies. If you do think like you talk, you just made me sick. You think you figured it out and can't really be fooled. But you're another little dumb sheep.
blog comments powered by Disqus