Religulous

When Bill Maher’s Religulous (2008) premiered, it predictably opened to mixed reviews. Narrated by Maher and directed by Larry Charles, Religulous is a scathing criticism on what the filmmakers see as inherent ignorance and immorality within religion.Critic Brian Orndorf wrote:Most of the ammo is reserved for Christianity. Instead of confrontations that shatter myths and raise consciousness, Religulous goes for cheap laughs, manipulating footage to make the participants resemble complete boobs. Maher has the sense to pump the brakes around Islam, treading carefully. Salient points are made about this furiously hot-potato faith, but Maher is noticeably outgunned, challenging the history of Islamic bloodshed from behind the comfort of news clips and sheepish concessions. The way the Middle East rumbles these days, how could anyone blame him?Indeed, the first third of Religulous concentrates solely on Christianity. However, Maher, who wrote the film, was raised as an American Catholic, though with a Jewish heritage. Often, writing is most effective when it focuses on what one knows, and Maher seems to know Christianity. Yet, what he primarily depicts is a particular variety of fundamentalist Christianity. While polls vary in regards to the percentages of American “liturgical” Christians in contrast to “fundamentalist” Christians, few would argue that the latter comprise the bulk of stereotypes of the faith.Maher’s perspective on Catholicism suggests he believes it resembles a Protestant evangelical faith. Most post-Vatican II Catholics today would not identify with such views. One could even question the extent of Maher’s exposure to Catholic education, even in a pre-Vatican II environment. His portrayal of Revelations as a literal doomsday book is undeniably filtered through an evangelical lens. Yet, from its earliest history, Catholic readings have predominantly interpreted it as a metaphorical work, written in a popular period genre. It is not viewed as prophecy but, rather, as a book of the past, which sounded a warning regarding the first great persecutor of Christians: Nero.Neeley Tucker of the Washington Post addressed Maher’s rudimentary knowledge of religion:One of the rules of satire is that you can’t mock things you don’t understand, and Religulous starts developing fault lines when it becomes clear that Maher’s view of religious faith is based on a sophomoric reading of the Scriptures and that he doesn’t understand that some thoughtful people actually do believe in some sort of spiritual life.While Maher was not writing an academic paper, his film could have benefited considerably from consultation with theologians. Maher’s goal, however, wa to make an entertaining and amusing documentary. The late Roger Ebert concurred:It’s not what the movie is about, it’s how it’s about it. This movie is about Bill Maher’s opinion of religion. He’s very smart, quick and funny, and I found the movie entertaining, although sometimes he’s a little mean to his targets. He visits holy places and talks with adherents of the religions. Or maybe talks with is not quite the right phrase. It’s more that he lines them up and shoots them down. He interrupts, talks over, slaps on subtitles, edits in movie and TV clips, and doesn’t play fair. I took a guilty pleasure in his misbehavior.Of course, Maher doesn’t have to play fair and anyone who can identify with being targeted by unethical, nonsensical, overzealous fundamentalists could, likewise, revel in Maher’s intellectual bad boy approach. Indeed, as a humorist Maher accomplishes what he sets out to do and, in the process, reveals that proverbial fire-behind -the-smoke cliché is authentic.There is an almost equal amount of fire behind the smoke in criticisms that Maher’s film is biased, takes cheap shots, and picks easy targets. Yet, for too long the antics of extreme right wing evangelical kooks have been dismissed as the rants of an inconsequential, extreme fringe. While the moral majority is certainly not a majority, and their interpretation of morality can be debated, their influence is vast enough to warrant Religulous as an imperfect but essential documentary.Religious ignorance is seen in many media-worthy examples. Daily, we read of murders motivated by religion. Or, on a more cartoonish level, an embarrassing example can be found in the scores of people lining up to purchase greasy chicken in a show of support for a fast food magnate’s expressed desire to deprive same-sex couples of civil liberties. An equally absurd illustration might be found in ratings spikes for the television series “Duck Dynasty” after its star publicly delivered a religious diatribe against the LGBTQ community. American-styled evangelical Christianity audaciously made a potential celebrity martyr of a gun toting camouflaged hayseed who blows off the heads of ducks for Jesus.We may claim that these are caricatured archetypes, far removed from the theologies of Augustine, Aquinas, and Julian. However, it is this barbaric parody of religion which holds sway with evangelical masses. In such a climate, Maher’s lack of civility can easily be justified.Maher is not above using religious texts against adherents. He consistently refers to the words and teachings of a literary Jesus from Nazareth as being in direct opposition to rightist portrayals of a die-hard deity. When confronting these contradictions, Maher is either met with blank stares or passive aggression, verifying the latent illiteracy which monopolizes Western Christendom. Some of the most disturbing vignettes depict Maher’s interactions with Arkansas senator Mark Pryor. Maher understandably takes issue with “leaders who believe in talking snakes.” In defense of his childish religious beliefs, Pryor counters, “you don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate.”Crude retorts from the “faithful” are hardly alarming to those of us who were raised in an evangelical climate. With a film crew behind him, Maher is equipped with an armor of sorts (which he needs in light of his extroverted sarcasm). Without the benefit of cameras, Maher’s “peddling of doubt,” would most assuredly have been countered with a flying fist to the face in any number of the Midwestern charismatic parishes I was forced to attend in my youth.Maher was aware that the right-wing talk show pundits would demonize him. Feeling much was at stake, he does not care, tackling religious patriarchal mindsets with an equally patriarchal-styled skepticism. There may have been validity in this approach; he may have felt it was the only language religious Neanderthals will understand.A criticism that I leveled against Robert Duvall’s The Apostle (1997) was that the film depicted Pentecostal charisma as stemming from an impassioned love of God. Such was rarely the case in my own heritage. More often than not, charismatic outbreaks were born of intense, apocalyptic fears. Maher knows of what he speaks when issuing a warning about “self-fulfilled” prophecy. Reasoning is impotent against those with the capacity and desire to compose a Biblically inspired promenade to Armageddon.Among the sharpest humor points is Maher’s impersonation of a Scientologist, followed by his getting kicked out of the Vatican, and discoursing with a Jesus wannabe who claims to be descendent of the old boy himself. Maher and Charles’ use of cheesy animated footage to caricature a long history of Christian violence, nonsensical beliefs, and Mormonism (among other faiths), coupled with clips from crass Hollywood Bible epics, is the equivalent of fighting fire with fire. One of the most unsettling vignettes proves to be one with a Holocaust-denying Hasid.Despite claims to the contrary, Maher does briefly engage with a few intelligent clergymen, and covers Islam and its crimes extensively (if not as much as Christianity). Hinduism and Buddhism are noticeably absent from Religulous, but the latter religion is predominantly pacifist, and its adherents often describe it as a philosophy as opposed to a faith.Maher makes no hypocritical claims of subscribing to a fair and balanced report, yet he is as either/or in his agenda as the fundamentalists, which is where Religulous stumbles. With leadership and/or adherents, all religions have succumbed an either/or outlook. Even religions initially based on eclecticism (theosophy, et. al.,) eventually adopted an attitude of being correct in opposition to other “incorrect” religions.In fairness, religion is hardly alone in this. The Surrealists imploded once Andre Breton began dictating the movement’s bullet points, made atheism a mandatory tenet (which reportedly prompted Salvador Dali’s departure), and took an aggressive tactic against rival art movements. Comic book fans wage into internet wars over blasphemous portrayals of their characters, damn rival comic book companies (DC or Marvel), or even issue death threats to film critics who dare to give negative reviews to the latest celluloid treatment of their funny-paper deity (as they did with the last Batman movie). These subjects share attitudes we see in religion.Religulous and Maher both have built rabid fan bases, as well as enemies. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine was not far off the mark when he wrote that Maher would have burned at the stake in an earlier age. But atheism is no more immune to black-or-white vision than any other religion, movement, and revolution. Militant atheism is a new, much bandied-about catchphrase that is actually not so new. State-mandated atheism has proven as immoral as state religion. Indeed, more people were butchered in a single day of a secular revolution (Russia) than those murdered in the whole Inquisition’s history.Where Maher’s one-sidedness and naiveté becomes most glaring is in his failure to see and grasp the positive benefits gleaned from religious imagination. In his two-fisted attachment to hyperrealism, Maher glosses over El Greco’s Ascension, Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, Mozart’s masses, Gauguin’s Nativity, Bruckner’s cathedral symphonies, and “Charlie Brown’s Christmas,” all of which were produced from religious imagination.Maher equates religion solely with a two-dimensional perspective on belief. Belief is not something one can see, smell, taste, or touch. It can be organic and metaphoric. The late Andrew Greeley puts his finger on the pulse[1]:The Catholic imagination invests stories with its distinctive sensibility, developing Easter lilies, Santa Clause, and the Feast of Corpus Christi. Its devotions include Mary, Jesus, angels, saints, statues, stained-glass windows, holy water, religious medals, candles. It is a verdant rainforest of metaphors.Greely recounted the immense difficulty he encountered in his attempt to explain his aesthetic appreciation for religious imagination and mythology, divorced from dull, dogmatic concepts of belief, in his reflection on a television interview with Phil Donahue[2]:“Now, Fr. Greeley, don’t you think it would be better if all those dissenting Catholics left the Church? Wouldn’t it be better if only those who agreed with the pope remained Catholic? Shouldn’t all good Catholics agree with the pope-birth control, celibacy, abortion, the ordination of women?” How to explain in a few moments two millennium of history in which pious Catholics, even saints, disagreed with the pope? “Because they like being Catholic.” He threw up his hands in disgust. “What does liking have to do with it?” “Everything.”In his assessment of Religulous, Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman wrote that Maher’s case against religion is, “an adolescent one that has more bark than bite.”Maher’s lack of bite is indeed adolescent, although not without value. In his total rejection of religion, Maher is simply at an adolescent stage of thought . He sees its unquestionably dominant tendencies towards oppression, lack of humanism, unethical proselytizing, and immoral, two-dimensional enforcement of systematic beliefs. Maher sees a mother of four being allowed to die in a Catholic hospital, rather than being permitted a life-saving abortion. But he fails to see religious work in social reform. Maher calls out the moral contrast between imperial Vatican City and a destitute, first century Nazarene who died a criminal’s death, but he fails to credit a priest for also acknowledging this. Maher rightly points out that the Gospels are consistent in their condemnation of avarice (a fact which tends to be conveniently blanketed over in the empire of “religious business”). Unfortunately, he one-sidedly neglects to examine the extensiveness of Christian charity.The literal minded, whether atheist or fundamentalist, lack the evolved attitude of a both/and state. Perhaps Maher’s non-belief will evolve. Still, even in its imperfect panorama, Religulous may be appraised positively as functional art. If Maher’s film inspires even a scant few towards critical thinking, self-reflection, or identification, then Religulous has done its job. Maher’s methodology may be pubescent, but perhaps that is an effective salve to religions which are, alarmingly, still primarily locked in a primate mindset, even after thousands of years. Religulous is a trench fighter’s opus and a progressive half-step.Greeley, Andrew. The Catholic Imagination. Berkely: University of California Press, 2000. [']Greeley, Andrew. The Catholic Myth. New York: Collier Books, 1990. [']* my review originally appeared at 366 weird movies

Great movie, some of Bill's best stuff

I ordered this DVD, it arrived, I opened it, put it in the DVD player and it worked. Can't ask for more than that.

Well done but I'm prejudiced - Bill Maher, and Colbert, are about the best social commentators we have now that George Carlin has passed.

Bill Maher roams the world making fun of the delusions and lengths people go to protect their ingrained irrational. On the way we meet a whacky mix of characters in which Bill frequently gets a laugh out of most by there own doing.The film consists of a mix of interviews with people from a variety of backgrounds interspersed with little snippets of religious television and movies to comical effect. At times I fear for Bill as he asks the tough questions but most of the time the subjects don't realise their having the piss taken out of them. The looks on there faces and pauses when they realise what they've just said are priceless.My favourite characters include:Jeremiah Cummings- Bill stirs him up about his wealth which he is rather proud of despite Jesus's views, conveniently believes it is easy for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle.The former missionary who tells of all Gods great miracles except can't remember any, except that it rained once. Doesn't believe in Santa Clause at least.The "ex-gay" pastor trying to convert others. Quote "Gays aren't happy" haha, even looks gay to Bills amusement.Mark Pryor Arkansas senator - proving you don't need a high IQ to get into senate, even says so - priceless.The constantly interrupting Rabbi - Holocaust denier and David Copperfield fanThe jewish inventor devoted to creating devices to be used on the sabbath, "Gods loopholes" and his state of the art wheelchairJose Luis de Jesus Miranda - reincarnation or is that relative (same thing?)of Jesus, or maybe Carmen Miranda - told in private by God of course.The whole of the Dutch Muslim gay community - "hope you like each other"Muslim cleric with his Led Zeppelin ringtone going off at inconvenient time.and of course Jesus himself - with his ice/water/steam analogyThough ultimately amusing it is distressing to see the hatred and denial of facts hidden behind the veil of religious beliefs that we are somehow led to respect. Not any more.I also found Religulous to provide some valuable history lessons for example the obvious similarities to Horus, Mithras and other gods written in texts thousands of years before Jesus. This and a broad array of useful quips, comebacks to be used in reply to any rubbish that is thrown your way - Atheists have a right to speak up too.There is a moral to the story and Bill outlines how disturbing andhow open these people are to the end of the world and the risks of self-fulfilling prophecies.To most of the reviewers who criticise Maher for attacking the "straw men". To them I say the fact is these people are well and truly out there, visible to the public and often profiting rather well ultimately at their expense. To the more moderate believers it could be argued that if anythings these people are true to their religion there is ample room for literal and ultimatley evil interpretations.For those who are arrogant enough to think they know how we were created,why we're all here and what happens after we die - well you don't, I don't and neither does Bill.

Top 10 review! Honest and humorous approach on religion. You need to see the reality of religion to understand.

As I agree with most of everything Bill Maher says, and am rendered utterly speechless at some of the things said by people he interviews in this film, maybe I`m not the right person to judge? If it hadn`t left me so frustrated, I would say that I had really enjoyed this film. If it had been a spoof, or a pastiche, it would be easier to laugh. But no folks, it`s all true. However, it is not - and I guess, Bill Maher neither offers to or makes any apologies for this - a balanced film. He is a comedian making a documentary, and not a documentary maker, and I feel he had two obvious goals during the making "Religulous" - to make a fool of everyone he interviews, and to try to avoid getting punched in the face.It`s fairly obvious that the editing is a bit naughty and that Bill encourages people to dig their own grave, but it`s also apparent that no amount of editing or airtime could allow some opinions to sound sane. With the exception of the one "rebel" priest in the Vatican, the subjects are presented saying a lot of silly things. A "museum" featuring dinosaurs living next to cavemen is pretty quirky, and it wouldn`t be worth the breath used in debating the point with the curator, except that he is taking $30million dollars of state funds to build it. Pretty much everyone "just knows" that they are right...and to conquer Maher`s doubt more is needed than blind faith. As a study of the lengths people go to to demonstrate their commitment to their faith it can be revelatory, to a strong atheist such as myself. But the Jewish Holocaust denier is surely just plain disturbing, whether you have a faith or not; be warned.I hope this film adds something to the debate, but if it is to be truly effective I guess it needs to be screened in schools, churches, synagogues, mosques and so on, worldwide, rather than the likely audience of intelligent agnostics and atheists. If I might be critical, I would say that I can`t help but feel that Maher`s dramatically delivered conclusion doesn`t quite sit with the message he set out to deliver - that the only sensible position regarding a belief in the existence or not of god is one of doubt. He argues quite strongly for a position much more extreme than that in my view; I don`t think "doubt" is the message of the last few minutes, more like something along the lines of banning all religion for the good of mankind. Still, worth watching - whatever your persuasion.

I got this cause I was curious after seeing a trailer and I'm glad I did. It's got some funny moments, some moments that make you think and it's really just a good way to pass an hour and a half or so. Bill Maher's style of presenting (and, obviously the way it's edited, I guess) can make it seem like he's deliberately goading the various religions he talks to, but it's never to the point where I've felt he's gone too far. Perhaps if you're religious you might not feel that way but if you're a fan of Bill then give this a watch. The seller was also very good, I got the DVD quite quickly and in good condition. I would happily use them (phoenix uk dispatch) again.

I really don't have anything to add to the excellent, well written reviews by Mssrs Reed, McFarlane and others, except 5 stars.This is one of my favourite DVDs, it's very funny, informative and ultimately unsettling.Yes as another reviewer has said, Bill Maher is preaching to the choir but he's also making a call for the choir to get off their collective butts and challenge religious wingnuts, who have caused and are causing immense harm in the world.He also gives some ammunition to do it with.Maybe not as rigorous as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christoper Hitchins (God is not Great) or Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation)............but a lot funnier.

This brilliant documentary should be part of the educational curriculum in schools. The fact that it probably never will be is proof of Bill's argument.In a thoughtful, sometimes hilarious, but always careful interview process, Bill takes us on a journey into the cognitive dissonances of blind-sided faith and its implications for the future of mankind.To remain an open-minded questioning human being is to celebrate the higher cortical functions with which most of us have been endowed. What Bill shows us in this well-woven film, is that man-driven certainties and religious extremism will very likely bring humanity to utter destruction. That is, until the human race grows up and matures beyond its infantile preoccupation with fundamentalist Religion.One of the most compelling moments early on in the film is when Bill interviews a group of truck driving evangelical Christians in a road side cafe in the USA. After a heated discussion about their Bible-driven belief system, they finally agree to disagree and he thanks them for being Christ-like and not 'Christian'. This is arguably, one of the most sensitive moments of the piece.I would suggest that this DVD should be part of one's desert island survival kit.And the book I would recommend for the really open minded would be Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God: What Religion really means". The Case for God: What Religion Really MeansThe Case for God: What Religion Really Means

This brilliant documentary should be part of the educational curriculum in schools. The fact that it probably never will be is proof of Bill's argument.In a thoughtful, sometimes hilarious, but always careful interview process, Bill takes us on a journey into the cognitive dissonances of blind-sided faith and its implications for the future of mankind.