Say what you will about the manipulation of facts in a Michael Moore-directed documentary, but the man knows how to tell compelling stories. Critics accuse him of hogging too much face time, mounting attack interviews, and staging publicity stunts, and they would all be right. But his films resonate. Not only does Moore cover hot-button issues in his films, but he has an uncanny ability to tap into a collective consciousness. He does this by telling stories.
Larry Charles and Bill Maher have a similar ferocity with which they attack the tenets of organized religion in “Religulous,” but they still have a lot to learn about what makes a movie engaging from beginning to end.
Charles is best known (now that “Seinfeld” is off the air) for directing “Borat,” that shocking, masterful satire of American culture that was such an unexpected hit two years ago. But he inherited that movie from another director, and had a star (Sacha Baron Cohen) and writing team (nominated for an Oscar) who had already pioneered the film’s fake-reality docudrama style on a TV show (“Da Ali G Show”).
As director of “Religulous,” Charles strings together a series of interviews that Maher conducts with religious leaders and followers from all over the world. As director, he is often seen on camera, accidentally in the background of a take or maybe on purpose—the reasons for it don’t matter. What does matter is that it is indicative of the sloppily thrown-together mess that’s passing for a movie here—which is not to say there isn’t a lot of interesting material covered during the film. There is.
Maher isn’t just skeptical of the existence of God, he is downright appalled at the way that religion has ingrained itself into the fabric of society. The talking snake and Garden of Eden legend pass for “fact” these days, and that makes Maher sick. This is the true face of normalcy? Each interview that he conducts starts out politely enough, be it at a portable chapel in a truck stop or a creepy theme park dedicated to Bible stories, but it is apparent that he’s just waiting for something to offend him so he can turn on his angry stand-up routine.
It is a good routine. At his best, he has the bewildered incredulousness of George Carlin. At his worst, he’s as self-righteous as his targets. Maher has his Bible facts down. What is unsettling about the movie is that his subjects, as a general rule, don’t have theirs. The biggest feeling I took away from the film isn’t a new one, but I am surely convinced of it now. Very few people really know what the Bible says—they just use it to fit their means and goals. Hate gays? Proof in the Bible. Love gays? Proof in the Bible. The one thing we can definitely count on is that the book was written and changed by countless numbers of authors and can be interpreted in many different ways. That makes believers who think they are sticking to the ultimate “Word of God” look even more ridiculous.
So Maher has a pretty easy time making fools of fundamentalists. Many hang themselves with their own rope. There are enough effective interviews—where Maher’s subjects don’t even realize how hypocritical they are—to make “Religulous” more than a passing curiosity and a true reflection of our current regressive culture. The problem is that Maher comes off just as pompus as the pious mass he is confronting.
When Maher does get an interviewee who is aware enough to admit and joke around about the inconsistencies of the good Book (there are at least two of these people in the movie), Charles cuts the interview short and moves on to easier marks. A deeper look into the contradictions of ancient texts and modern beliefs would have been nice. Just finding out how church leaders balance their faith with the hard-won facts of science would have made “Religulous” more than a pissed off skeptic’s stand-up routine.
But if the release of this movie opens doors to a debate that most of the world seems unwilling to even approach, then perhaps “Religulous” has accomplished something. It’s too bad, though, that it could have been so much more effective with some actual stories to draw an audience in.
You missed the main point of the whole subtext of Maher’s message: it’s not just that most religions are based on falsehoods; it’s far more important that religious beliefs have been and continue to be the source of most of the world’s worst problems. They are the source of most of the true immorality in the world and could possibly be responsible for the demise of mankind, through wars and environmental damage. Of course there is good done in the name of religion - no one denies that, but religions are hardly the keepers of the moral flame they would have you think they are
I agree with Maher’s point, and you’re right, I didn’t go into religion’s moral consequences in my review. But I don’t think that was necessarily a subtext. He spent quite a bit of time throughout and especially at the end of the film spelling that message out and driving it home.
I thought this was a very good movie…
It’s true that most of the people Maher talked to in this were what should be considered as “extreme” Many of them, you’ll also notice, said things like, “What kind of documentary are you making?” (which may bias some people to think that the manner in which this film was made was unfair, and one-sided)
**HOWEVER**
In my personal experience, there are actually very few Christians whom will actually sit down with you and have an INTELLIGENT conversation about Christianity, if they know that you have legitimate doubts to be addressed. In fact, when a valid point is brought up…it’s soooooo easy for them to say something like, “well that’s where FAITH comes in!”
And, honestly, there’s no REASONING with someone when it gets to that point. This movie isn’t going to make Christians, Muslims, Mormons, or Catholics just up and change their views…start questioning…go on a mission to stop religion, etc But will ANYTHING???
No. Nothing will…because even if someone goes out and KILLS ANOTHER PERSON, all they have to do is say “the devil got to me” and go on about their everyday business, because God will forgive them if they’re saaaaaaved!!!
True, there are things in the Bible that are good. Good qualities to have, good ways to live, sharing, thinking of others before yourself, etc… However, (like Maher said) THESE ARE COMMON SENSE!!!
In my opinion, the Bible was made to try to keep people in line during their lives, and that’s it. The fear that they’ll burn for eternity will keep believers from going all ape$hit. People don’t make decisions for themselves, because “it’s in God’s hands…He’ll tell me what to do.” Now, God’s become so much of a cop-out, it’s ridiculous!
Let’s just have a damn televised Religious Debate, and get this over with. Only people with common sense are allowed to vote.
I’m finished ranting…go see the movie. I give it a 5-Star rating
If anything, I was more than a little disappointed that Maher wasn’t harder on his interviews,since there are many, many questions he could have asked which could have elicited the nonsensical nature of religion. And I would have been thrilled to have him interview some serious theologians on the subject, which would served only to further highlight the absurdity of their stance. Here are some questions I would have liked to have asked some of his interviewees:
1) Doesn’t the sheer multiplicity of separate religions strongly suggest that (a) they are almost all convinced that they alone have a lock on the truth and yet, (b) clearly, none do?
2) There are over 23,000 different Protestant churches in the US alone, each differing from the other in beliefs about things like total immersion, musical intruments used in the church and the like. Doesn’t this suggest that they can’t all be right, and that they bear little resemblence to the early church?
3) Doesn’t the marriage of conservative Christianity and right wing politics bother you at all? Does that mean you believe God has to be a Republican? And couldn’t be a Democrat?
4) Doesn’t the existence of this alliance (conservative Christianity and right wing politics) have more to do, at its heart, with racisim than with anything else? How else would you explain the fact that it began immediately after the 1964 elections in which the Republicans carried two Southern states for the first time for the simple reason that they were disgusted by Lyndon Johnson’s announced decision to proceed with his Civil Rights agenda?
5) And doesn’t it bother you that the issues of “God, guns and gays” were added to the issue of racism, producing the “family values” bloc we have now, the heart of which is in the Bible Belt which is the lowest in the country in terms of levels of education but highest with regard to any index of disorder you might care to name?
6) What does all this have to do with Jesus? Does anyone seriously propose that Jesus would be in favor of capital punishment? Of elective wars? Of opposing raising the minimum wage? Of being anti-union? Of conducting ones life as if hanging onto every dollar was what it was all about?
7)Where did God the father come up with a son? And if he loved him so much, why did he send him to suffer and die? So he (the father) wouldn’t be angry any more? And how is it that the maker of the Universe even gets angry? Of makes mistakes? Or is jealous? This is not even a good myth.
I’m not a religious person and I didn’t see this movie but I have answers for Joe Monroe’s questions.
1) You may call this answer a cop-out but, really, facts concerning the stories of religious beliefs are not as relevant as the messages conveyed in those stories. Each culture conveys different morays that their respective religions represent, hints indifference.
2) It doesn’t matter if they’re all “right” as long the people who attend each church accept the beliefs of that church to better their own lives. The original church had to work for the people of its time. This answer works for question one as well.
3) Religion and civilization go together like bread and butter; one could easily argue that one can’t survive without the other (they are both systems of control). In my opinion, conservative politics with concerns to morals tend to tilt with the idea that maintaining the original (traditional) beliefs of society are more important than changing (reforming) them. A society built on morals that are based in a religion (which they all are) is constantly under threat from a political base based in reform (liberal or left-wing politics). It does not imply that God is a Republican (God wouldn’t have a political agenda) so much as it says that God’s will is law and therefore can’t be reformed.
4) This is more of a direct attack on American Christianity than on religion in general. Still, I would say that this answer relates directly with the answer to question 3. Our civilization is based in slavery followed by segregation. Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights agenda threatened the moral base.
5) Again I say MORAL BASE. You and I may share political beliefs that support reform but not everybody does. Also- “…Bible Belt which is the lowest in the country in terms of levels of education…” I THINK that this is simply an incorrect statement. I’m not strait up calling you wrong. I would simply imagine that America’s biggest education issues reside in the inner city schools around the country. I could very well be wrong. Let me know where you got your information.
6) Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and, um, God. Capital punishment is an ethical issue and no one can really know how Jesus felt on this issue. He was, of course, executed. Religion is a system of control and ethics. From the control standpoint it makes since that God would strike down the “wicked”. The “wicked” can be adjusted to meaning the enemies of the state. The issue of rather man or God alone has the right to do the judging and striking down is an issue argued among Christians (as well as other religious groups) all the time. A lot of Christianity talks of compassion for the poor. A system of control could never be on the side of the lower class (including small issues like minimum wage or unions). It all depends on what people believe religion to be.
7) You and I will never see eye to eye with Christians on this issue but I can give you the answer I think they would give. He loved mankind and sent his son to suffer and die to make up for our sins and imperfections as mortal beings. But if God is perfect and can’t make mistakes then I ask why are humans, one of his creations, imperfect? God made us with the potential to be perfect beings and we failed him and sinned. Does that answer really make sense? No. Sorry, it’s the best I can do with that question. You probably have them hands down on this one.
Where does one start, with a man like Bill Maher, and a film like Religulous? Maher accomplishes the same thing a man like Ben Stein accomplishes in Expelled, capturing, “got ya” moments on camera with out letting the interviewed offer an explanation. Better yet, like Expelled, Maher interviews those that seem least fit to represent the view he opposes, and passes them on to mis-informed viewers as the “brightest of the bunch”! This is seems to be evident with Maher’s belief in the relationship of Jesus Christ and the Horus story of Egyptian Mythology. This view is brushed off by most scholars, including liberal theologians and Near Eastern scholars. Check out links below
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/religulous-and-the-alleged-horus-christ-parallels/
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm
One gives an honest review of the movie, while deals nicely with the supposed Christ-Horus link.
Moving on the statements that equate all of the worlds evil to religion is not only ridiculous, but logically flawed. Pol Pot, Stalin, and the current Chinese government, give modern examples of evil being commited without religion added into the equation. I wonder when people will start trying to define or sum evil up with various world views, and realize that evil exists accross lines of religion and social class. Evil is a fundamental flaw, an element capable of being actualized in every human being. Which seems to provide us where the rubber meets the road moment! Is their hope that evil can be resolved, or will it always and forever exist.
The statement
“In my opinion, the Bible was made to try to keep people in line during their lives, and that’s it. The fear that they’ll burn for eternity will keep believers from going all ape$hit. People don’t make decisions for themselves, because “it’s in God’s hands…He’ll tell me what to do.” Now, God’s become so much of a cop-out, it’s ridiculous!”
This line of thought doesn’t seem to match up well with the first 400 years of Christianity. Surely, if Christ was destined for execution he may relent on what or who he thought he was. And the ferocity in which the Roman Empire excuted their persecution would follow this reasoning, but I suppose they were being fed to lions, crucified, and tortured, you know to control people.
I find too just as much as some non-believers do, the at times ridiculous comments people makes when I feel I have raised questions or made comments that seem to counter their remarks. Comments like, “well what is true to you doesn’t have to be true to me” or “well I personally believe that” come to mind.
Finally the constant association and obsession of conservative Christianity in bed with Right-Wing politics is beginning to become out dated and tired. This group, like the Islamic extrimist represent a very small group of each religion, sadly it is the squeakiest wheel that gets the most grease.
Many New Testament scholars hold the view that Christ never intended to create a Christian Nation, so asking the question whether Jesus is a republican or democrat, seems to be misguided and off based. In fact Jesus states, “that you can only serve one master God or Caesar” not both. Christians are called to live in the world, and not to be of it, this seems to negate the idea of legislating beliefs and morals within the structure of government. Anyhouw just a few thoughts.
In my review, I wrote: “A deeper look into the contradictions of ancient texts and modern beliefs would have been nice.” Glad to see it is happening on this post.
I haven’t seen the movie yet; but I intend to do so. I suspect there will be much with which I agree, in spite of the fact that I consider myself to a Christian.
I just wanted to comment on this sentence: “The one thing we can definitely count on is that the book was written and changed by countless numbers of authors and can be interpreted in many different ways. That makes believers who think they are sticking to the ultimate ‘Word of God’ look even more ridiculous.”
Yes, what Christians call the “Word of God” was written by multiple authors (at least 40, possible more). However, archaeological evidence show that over thousands of years the manuscripts have remained virtually unchanged (not including the occasional copyist error of leaving out or mis-spelling a word). Heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They demonstrated that the Jewish Bible (Christian Old Testament) remained the same for at least 900 years. There are over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts and over 19,000 ancient translations (Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Aramaic, etc.) and compared side-by-side there are no obvious (or intentional) alterations or changes.
Proof that the Bible is the Word of God? Nope. In the end, that truly is a matter of faith (as are all things - we all have to choose our own worldview partly on facts and on how we interpret those facts, which calls for faith). But the evidence, and it is documented and not junk science or junk legal defense, the evidence at least shows that the Bible I’ve got in my house today is the same Bible Christians used 1700 years ago (Council of Nicea) and the books are unchanged at least as far back as the 1st Century AD — and a little before then (Septuagint Greek translation of the OT is dated around 200 BC, Dead Sea Scrolls anywhere from 2nd Century BC to early 1st Century AD, earliest copies of the Christian Gospels to late first Century AD).
As far as interpretation of that Bible goes - you’re right in saying people read all kinds of things that may or may be there. And sad to say, too many Christians don’t know their Bibles well enough to defend the positions they take - right or wrong.