No doubt there will be (and have been) a flurry of people writing about Bill Maher’s new film, “Religulous” (e.g., J.P. Holding’s site). At the prompting of a friend, I figured I might as well join the fray. I have not seen this film, nor do I have any plans to do so. My best analysis is that the point of the film is to have a good laugh while showing that religion is ridiculous, hence the titular portmanteau “Religulous” (and my smart-alec title).
I hesitate to write a full scale essay on this, because I’m ambivalent about whether or not the film is worth any serious consideration. For my money, it seems to fall somewhere between The Da Vinci Code and a “Fossils not Gospels” bumper sticker. Here’s why:
(1) Straw man arguments, anyone? It’s easy to refute religion when “religion” is an amalgam of cherry picked individuals and fringe groups that make your point for you. Where are the interviews with D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, or N.T. Wright? How about a thoughtful Muslim scholar? No, instead, Maher visits a Muslim gay bar in the Netherlands.
(2) Maher’s thesis, in so far as I can tell, is that religion is not just silly, but dangerous and ultimately harmful (paging Karl Marx…). For Maher, religion is dishonest and stops people from thinking. Apparently a sardonic film purposed for big laughs makes people think. Maher states himself that his “primary motivation” is comedy. Ipso facto, I don’t see why he should be taken seriously, unless you’re apt change your worldview after watching a particularly good Seinfeld re-run.
(3) Director Larry Charles sums up the harm of religion this way: “If I believe that Jesus is God and you believe Mohammed is God, then no matter how tolerant we are, we are never going to meet. All you have to do is push that one more step, then somebody’s like, ‘You’re in the way of people believing in Jesus,’ and ‘You’re in the way of people believing in Mohammed,’ and the only answer is to kill you.” Ruductionistic? Check. Superficial? Check. Grossly misinformed? Check plus (e.g., Muslims don’t believe that Mohammed is God).
Any observer would note that Maher objects to religion largely on moral grounds: Why is religion bad? Because ultimately it ends up with people killing each other. Because it’s full of hypocrites. Because it discourages thoughtful interaction with the real world in lieu of blind submission to jejune mythologies. The problem is that he cannot tell me why murder, hypocrisy, or mindlessness are “bad,” because he’s lost any reference point beyond himself. All he can really say is that he doesn’t like murder. He cannot say that murder wrong for all people. If he wants to make an absolute moral claim, he needs some absolute authority to do so. Maher has none.
Could he appeal to law? Do government authorities tell us what’s right and wrong? Was a German in 1941 therefore justified in murdering a Jew? Does he appeal to a majority? I don’t think he would want to appeal to a majority, since throughout human history, his views don’t even register on the demographic radar. Let’s not forget the impossibility of agreeing to what’s right and wrong across the human landscape. Would he appeal to some flavor of god? Maher proclaims himself an apatheist, so he does believe in a higher power, albeit an irrelevant one. Maher will therefore get no help from his unknowable god, since said god does not speak, nor are the attributes of this god apparent to anyone except Maher himself.
All that said, as a Christian, I do maintain that Maher is worth some attention because, merited it or not, he’s getting lots of it. People will be talking about “Religulous,” and thoughtful Christians need to be able to engage with the threads of popular conversation. Furthermore, and just like The Da Vinci Code, it provides an opportunity for sharing the Truth in a sea of distortions and lies.
Finally, I cannot in good conscience write the above without stressing that Bill Maher is not my enemy. He, like me, is a sinner desperately in need of a great Savior. He is loved by God, and created in His image. Therefore, I love him as a brother in humanity. However, I cannot suffer lightly his behavior, which mocks the one who sustains us, and decries as silly or dangerous all that most of humanity holds dear.
Stay tuned for Part II: Maher’s “Jon Stewart” complex and the real danger.
I saw the movie last night, and I was glad I did so. The Loewe’s Boston Common theater was packed out, and we had to sit about three rows in front of the screen. As we left the theater, those walking in front and back of us were all talking about religion, God, and Maher’s movie. As I listened to comments during and after the movie from those around us, I realized that Maher is asking the same questions as many of them. For many Americans, Maher is stepping out as the only one willing to publicly say some of these things, and people of faith would do well to listen.
I am a Christian, and unapologetically so. But I make it a point never to defend religion. Religion binds, harms, and causes its adherents to follow suit. Religion is man-made, and therefore broken. In this film, Maher is simply observing and underscoring what we’ve known for thousands of years: that left to our own devices, humans have always taken the teachings and actions of Jesus and changed and added to them to suit our own selfish desires, leading to some of the worst atrocities history has ever seen.
Yes, Maher also mocks blind belief in a God we cannot prove. But at the end of the day, my assessment is that like many other agnostics/skeptics/atheists, Maher’s main problem isn’t so much with belief or Jesus, but with fallen believers and the hypocrisy of their actions. He’s also on the offense against absolute certainty among the faithful without doubts or questions … you know, the ones who lean on supposed proven empirical data, the Bible as science text book, and warmed over clichés as their foundations.
These things simply won’t fly for Maher, whose questions stump nearly everyone with whom he speaks. Like you, I would have liked to have seen an interview with Wright or McLaren or Wallis or Witherington, but this, of course, would have blown up the main point of the movie, which was to create a “scripted comedy” to cast doubt on all religious belief.
To wrap up, I don’t see Maher’s film as a threat, but a gift. He’s asking many of the questions that folks out there ask … ones that are genuine barriers to belief. While we may frown on Maher’s medium and method (biting, sarcastic comedy), we needn’t frown on Maher’s questions (message). If you can muster up some thick skin for earthy language and potentially disturbing images, go see this movie … and take a friend. Could start a conversation that may not have happened.
The response I posted on one of the pages commenting on the movie.
Well, let’s see, they’re responsible for most of the wars we’ve ever had. The Crusades, the oppression of women, the oppression of minorities, exorcisms, killing witches, honor killings, suicide bombings, having sex with children, keeping women in the beekeeper suits, you know … where does it end?”
Perhaps with some truth. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod) religion played a motivating factor in only 123 of the 1763 wars recorded therein. The Crusades were a war in response to 400 years of Muslim aggression. In the ancient world women were regarded as second class and the only texts we have that suggest some level of equality were from St Paul. The inventors of suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers, a secular group. And on the subject of sex with children I didn’t know NAMBLA were a Christian organization.
Meanwhile the 52 atheist rulers have murdered about 150 million in the last century. We should be glad there haven’t been more of them.
http://www.popeater.com/movies/article/bill-maher-religious-people-dont-know/200053
Illenwek, according to Jewish tradition Adam and Eve had about 60 sons and 30 daughters. Cain married one of the sisters born before he killed his brother. Moreover the concept of corporate identity, where the leader is representative of the whole is the reason that all human beings are judged based on the sins of the father. Of course our own self interested actions are icing on the cake.Ceeing, in terms of historical evidence Jesus of Nazareth is as well attested as Caesar Augustus. I detect from the way you rave about the religious moral laws you want to do all those things that Christianity forbids. Go ahead, it’s not my problem.Rnx, if a person believes that someone is making false claims then they feel an obligation to correct them. I suppose you take the same attitude when a maths teacher corrects your homework.Pocollins, the 28 regimes headed by atheists have murdered about 150 million people in the past century. The infamous Charles IX of France had 10,000 murdered
That is, the documented worst Christian ruler, Charles IX of France, had 10,000 Huguenots murdered. Atheistic regimes murders range from 20,000 in 1946-49 Greece, to 76,702,000 in 1923-2007 China. Charles’ murders were roundly condemned by his peers. From the atheists… complete silence. I guess that without the threat of eternal hellfire the only way atheists can get compliance in to kill people by the score. It’s a good thing there haven’t been more of them. Most of us might not be here.
http://www.popeater.com/article/maher-vs-god-religulous-flays-organized/194453