criterionforum.org

HerrSchreck wrote:If folks arent hurting anyone, leave them be. Enjoy your own intelligence and don't stir the fucking shitpot.

IQ test: Is this movie going to change believers minds?

To answer your question, no.

However, this is not analogous to chin-checking people in the street and shoving your beliefs down their throats. This is a film, screened in a private room, that you have to pay money to see.

If it only appeals to the base, fine. Hopefully, it's an enjoyable comedy. If it also pushes agnostics closer to atheism, great. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know how effective it could be.

You gotta love the outrage of liberals. "We must tolerate intolerance." Yeah...we can tolerate it...to a point. When it moves from the private sphere to the public, then we can no longer tolerate it.

Ok. I know. Not all religious people are intolerant. And they're certainly not all stupid. I have a philosophy professor who's brilliant AND Catholic.

But...having said that...let me tell you who my enemies are.

My enemy is anybody who claims with certainty that I'm going to Hell if I don't believe what they believe.

My enemy is anybody who claims that gays should be second class citizens.

My enemy is anybody who claims that women should be second class citizens.

My enemy is anybody who claims that people of other religions are inherently inferior.

My enemy is anybody who claims that atheists and agnostics are lesser human beings.

My enemy is anybody who claims a divine inspiration in the realm of public policy.

My enemy is anybody who believes in supporting Israel and oppressing Palestinians for the sake of the Rapture.

My enemy is anybody who walks around with giant signs of bloody fetuses.

My enemy is anybody who objects to science on theological grounds (which are not necessarily the same as ethical or spiritual grounds).

I could go on, but that's a start. If you don't fit into any the above descriptions, and you still believe in talking snakes, then fine. You are not my enemy. You may even be my ally. But, for the record, I still think you're cuckoo. Snakes don't fucking talk. The Grand Canyon wasn't created 6000 years ago. And there never was a time when people put saddles on dinosaurs.

Now I don't need to sit through Maher's movie!

See what a useless movie can do? It even got lazy ol Tyrone upset now, and the alligator surplus desperately needs him.. he who once upon a time said "Pick your battles wisely."

Now we're in the most hopeless of them all.

And yes, for the umpteenth time-- anyone who wants to mess with your life and godify legistlation.. they're my enemy too.

Can we all smile and pop an opana now?

Perhaps I'm just "un-American" (God forbid), but I think the battle against intolerance is always worth fighting. Granted, this is just an internet movie forum--hardly the arena for real combat--but I do think we need to be careful not to give ideological cover to bigotry. And I understand that that wasn't your intention. However, once you start throwing around politically-freighted terms like "un-American", intentions can easily be misunderstood and/or misinterpreted.

Slothrop wrote: And there never was a time when people put saddles on dinosaurs.

Haha! That reminds me of the "Time Masheen" theme ride in Idiocracy that depicts the Second World War as a battle between T-Rexs wearing helmets emblazoned with Swastikas and "U.N." logos.

Every vocal atheist gets accused of "smugness" at some point, but Maher really earns the word (though not because of his atheism -- all else being equal, I highly doubt he'd be any humbler as a religious person). I'm an atheist, too, and I would (and sometimes do) even say that religion at this point has a net negative effect on human civilization. Maher seems to agree, but rather than address the inherent problems, he seems more interested in making fun of loonies, or anybody he can manage to paint as such. This might even be O.K. if it had anything to do with consciousness-raising, but I don't see any of that here. And I'm basing this opinion not on the trailer for Religulous (which is painful, but as with any trailer could be misrepresentative) but on his increasingly lunatic rants on the subject. Anyone who thinks Richard Dawkins' approach is arrogant should take a look at his appearance on Maher's show, as it really puts them both into perspective.

And then there's this...

Highway 61 wrote:What irks me is that Mahr may be an atheist, but he is an incredibly superstitious person. His fervor about the ineffectiveness of medicine and his stupid belief that because he eats well he is immune to all illness is just as laughable as any creationist's denial of evolution. His recent freak out at Bob Costas on the issue is probably funnier than anything in this film.

...which is absolutely spot-on. If you're going to address religious nonsense and call yourself a rationalist (as Maher has called himself) you need to be consistent about it. The scientific method is either valid or it isn't. You can't point and laugh at people who deny evidence about one thing and then turn around and deny other evidence obtained by the very same methods. That's exactly the kind of willful, obstinate ignorance boasted by the people Maher is getting such a kick out of making fun of. You also can't say that medical science is unsound because drug companies are corrupt any more than you can say atheism is evil because Stalin was a murderous, amoral dictator.

There's absolutely no reason religion, even the very core of it, can't or shouldn't be lampooned or ridiculed, but Maher just isn't good at it or right for it. Watching him try only makes me wish all the more that our country still had the capacity to produce an Ambrose Bierce or a Mark Twain in the era of mass media.

Far less significant to me, but no less bothersome given my proclivities: if he really wants to pronounce "Religulous" with a soft G, it needs to be spelled "Religiulous." I can't look at the word "Religulous" and not pronounce it with a hard G. And in any case, it's a really terrible title. But I'm a huge Lewis Carroll fan, so I have high standards for portmanteau words.

...shots at baptist loonies with southern twangs and protestant rednecks with beerbellies is too easy and lame, as are muslims/gay muslims.

I don't see him chuckling down his nose in any NY or Hollywood yeshivas or temples, and for good reason too... but judaism happens to be the common denominator running thru his film's thesis (the core of monotheism), and the mixing of the relgious and the political has turned the middle east into an inferno. But he'd never have the balls to go there because he's not taking on religion, he's looking to dress nice and get in front of the camera with some easy targets-- to have a few laughs at the expense of a few dumb people.

Kirkinson wrote: he really wants to pronounce "Religulous" with a soft G,

That would explain why I found this thing barely vocable. With a soft -g I can actually pronounce it, although now that I can, it sounds awful.

>>flump<<
ruffle-mao.

You sir, are resplendent in your Win. I congratulate you.

Did Maher really say that he's immune from illness because he eats well? I don't remember him putting it that way.

I think some here are a little too quick to judge what the movie is going to be before they've seen it. If it's just about making fun of people who believe weird things, then I think some of the criticism here is justified. But if it explores the socio-political consequences of religion, then it could be very worthwhile.

If the "beer-swilling, redneck" is an ignorant gay-bashing bigot (because the Bible told him so), then ridicule is quite appropriate. If he's just some guy minding his own business, believing what he wants to believe and not condemning anybody, that's a different story. Let's wait and see.

Slothrop wrote:Did Maher really say that he's immune from illness because he eats well? I don't remember him putting it that way.

It's been a while since that episode aired, but I believe his assertion was this: if you or me or Bob Costas were on a crowded plane full of coughing, sneezing, fevered passengers, we would get sick. Maher, on the other hand, had no chance in hell of getting sick because he doesn't eat food that's tainted with chemicals, and he doesn't take meds. He went on to say that medicine is only acceptable to take under life and death circumstances. Ironically, he came off like the stereotypical Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness, which Costas pointed out only to be ignored.

I watch Maher's show pretty regularly, and I'd heard him slam drug companies dozens of times. But on this episode he went overboard and ranted until the panel and audience went dead quiet in awkward silence. It was just embarrassing to watch, especially for a guy who has spent years bashing (often justifiably) creationists and global warming skeptics.

interesting ideas coming from a guy who constantly makes jokes about how much pot he smokes.

A true wise man is no longer with us...

Holy Shit
Ten Commandments
The Sanctity of Life

I doubt Bill Maher's film will be as fearless as Carlin, but we can hope.

RIP, George....

I haven't seen this poster yet online, but when I was at the theater this weekend, I saw another one sheet for this film. As if they needed to drive the point home any further, this poster features the title of the film and three monkeys, dressed in religious garb, and one covering their ears, one their eyes and the other, its mouth.

I'm reminded of what Jon Stewart said about moveon.org when it comes to the trailer for this film: "Making [even people who agree with you] cringe."

According to the LA Times, Bill Maher hates your religion.

I wasn't impressed with this movie. Maher shows the ridiculousness of religious beliefs, and that's pretty much it. Purposeful but lacking depth.

HerrSchreck wrote:who cares what people believe... so long as they're not hurting anybody.

Righto. Except these are the same religious nutjobs who voted in Bush for 8 years - and may yet vote in our favourite female creationist. And all because they believe that raped children shouldn't be allowed to have abortions.

I enjoyed Religulous, agreed with Religulous, but it's flawed. It really feels as though Charles and Maher knew this thing wouldn't fly over 2 hours, and that's not a lot of time to specifically refute even the major world religions. As a result, coherence is sacrificed for comedy.

For example, we meet a Jewish man who creates trinkets to get around the laws of the Sabbath, which prohibit Jews from working or pushing buttons or other such things on the day. As soon as Maher establishes the rules of the Sabbath, establishes the person, cuts away to funny reference, and establishes what it is the person is doing to circumvent the Sabbath, we're already onto the next quirky nutjob.

Some poignant moments are found by the camera. Maher opens on some truckers, who most liberal Americans might look down on. One trucker walks out on Maher, but the others stick around. They accept Maher, but are never swayed. Later, we realize the beliefs of these harmless rednecks aren't harmless themselves. They're imbued in much more hateful people, culminating with Maher, himself, walking out on a Jewish Holocaust denier, paralleling the earlier trucker.

I had no problem with the people Maher chose to present. His argument is not so much to say that religious people are all exactly like the guy in the Jesus costume or the guy who raps about suicide bombing. He presents the extremes to show what adherence to faith inevitably begets. Faith, by definition, is believing something without evidence, and Maher wishes to end anti-rational thinking.

His argument ultimately is that those who don't count themselves as religious are a minority larger than blacks, Jews, or other ethnic groups. His argument is to come out of the closet. Don't be fear-stricken into thinking faith is a virtue.

Similarly, his argument to the faithful is to look at what you are sowing. The "moderates" are enablers. Don't go along with the status quo. Don't promote certainty over doubt. There is nothing virtuous about faith.

It seems like a polemic, and it is, but it's still funny. I'm not reflecting that well in my comments, I realize. I laughed throughout. Sure, the rapper sings about suicide bombing and demands Free Speech protections, but he thinks Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses is a "complicated issue." Good ol' fashioned irony, or hypocrisy if you prefer.

The final montage is powerful and earned by the argument presented by the rest of the film. The text looks like it came out of My First Video Editing, but the images and words are clear.

Overall, my biggest argument is that I wanted more. Not necessarily more characters, but more time. Entire arguments and moments are blown by for the sake of running time. I can't fault the film for this, but I can only imagine if it had shown Palin's gay conversion church or Obama's 20-year relationship with a racist pastor to show how entrenched America truly is.

Grand Illusion wrote: As a result, coherence is sacrificed for comedy.

By far the most accurate description I have yet heard of the film. I really enjoyed this movie, laughed, and had as great of a time as I have had at the movies all year. (It helped that the local arthouse theater here -- a place where screenings are a wild success if the place is 1/3 full -- was packed to capacity on the Saturday evening after the film opened. It was an especially cathartic experience in light of the fact that the Mormon church was holding its biannual conference meetings that weekend.)

But somewhere in the parade of one-liners, wack jobs, and tossed-off clip show jokes, Maher and Charles forgot to make a broader, more powerful critique of religion and its effect on culture and politics. Which is too bad because as good as it felt to laugh about all of this, the subject matter probably deserves a more serious analysis -- the kind that Maher abruptly alludes to at the end, but never truly prepares his audience for.

Tom Hagen wrote:Which is too bad because as good as it felt to laugh about all of this, the subject matter probably deserves a more serious analysis -- the kind that Maher abruptly alludes to at the end, but never truly prepares his audience for.

I understand the lack of preparation you feel, but I couldn't see the film ending any other way. The final monologue was well-written and the montage well-cut.

Leaving the theater with just a throwaway laugh at everything we've seen would've been extremely unsatisfying. It is, as you say, "abrupt," but I feel it's a necessary shift in tone.

Other than that, I agree with you

>>But...having said that...let me tell you who my enemies are.

My enemy is anybody who claims with certainty that I'm going to Hell if I don't believe what they believe.

My enemy is anybody who claims that gays should be second class citizens.

My enemy is anybody who claims that women should be second class citizens.

My enemy is anybody who claims that people of other religions are inherently inferior.

My enemy is anybody who claims that atheists and agnostics are lesser human beings.

My enemy is anybody who claims a divine inspiration in the realm of public policy.

My enemy is anybody who believes in supporting Israel and oppressing Palestinians for the sake of the Rapture.

My enemy is anybody who walks around with giant signs of bloody fetuses.

My enemy is anybody who objects to science on theological grounds (which are not necessarily the same as ethical or spiritual grounds). <<

For the record, I am a Christian (the husband of an Episocpal priest), and I don't believe any of those things. I believe science and faith coexist peacably, and so can all of us. I don't believe in Hell (and certainly not in the rapture - that's a non-Biblical fairy tale). I believe that if your faith is all about being rewarded in some future life, you're missing the point. Christ calls us to to love our neighbors as ourselves (all our neighbors, including athiests, Muslims, etc.) right now; to work for peace and social justice here and now, in this life. I believe that if Christ were alive today he would be working in the gay community to gain equal rights for the one segment of our population it's still legal to discriminate against.

Unfortunately, I also believe that mainstream Christian faith has been hijacked in this country by theologically and intellectually bankrupt fundamentalist extremists who have perverted the Christ's message and are now simply wrapping GOP talking points in religious trappings. To me, the term "Christian conservative" is an oxymoron. Christ wasn't a conservative; he was a radical. And, as Max Von Sydow says in HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, if he could see all the things that have been done in his name over the centuries "he would never stop throwing up." I haven't seen RELIGULOUS yet, but I suspect it's narrow-minded fundamantalists who provide Maher with his punchlines. And, frankly, they deserve it. I fear that these people are damaging the public perception of my religion beyond repair.

ByMarkClark, thanks for posting that. I had quite an entertaining time watching Religulous but it left me scared and sad because I too would qualify myself a Christian, and it doesn't take a viewing of this movie to know that the conditions of the contemporary "culture" of Christianity have become more important than the message of Christ. I don't want to begrudge anyone their happiness, but organized religion can be terrifying (and so bizarre that you either laugh...or cry)

All that being said, this movie did sacrifice coherence for comedy, as it was written below. And it was indeed hilarious. I just wish he would've honored his initial quest to find out WHY? and dwelled more with people such as the Vatican astronomer, who unlike the babbling old man he uncovered outside, seemed to actually have something rational, something interesting, to say. But of course, Maher wasn't out for an even-handed, insightful research into religion.