criterionforum.org

Bill Maher takes on organized religion in this documentary, scheduled to open in New York and LA on July 11. "Borat" (and long time television) director Larry Charles is at the helm.

No trailers yet, but Lionsgate has released posters, and Maher has recently discussed the film on his HBO show, and with Larry King here.

I wonder if Ben Stein will crash the premiere . . .

He looks like George Washington on the poster.

Here's the trailer. It looks incredibly stupid. Choosing the most fanatical examples of every religion, to make a case that "religious people are crazy" is simplistic and reductive.

I get it, Bill's an athiest. But his smugness is worse than anything the most Bible thumping, honk-you-horn-if-you-love-Jesus follower could come up with.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Here's the trailer. It looks incredibly stupid. Choosing the most fanatical examples of every religion, to make a case that "religious people are crazy" is simplistic and reductive.

Oh, pshaw... it's not that bad. It's holding up the candle of you-can't-be-serious sarcasm to the simplistic theism of its fish-in-a-barrel practitioners. You find that reductive? So be it. It seems like good-natured ribbing to me. Is it a PBS NOVA production on the neuroscience of belief? No. Is it funny? Hell yeah.

Amen, jesus

The trailer makes it look weak, thin and obvious. But even if the film itself is funnier and deeper, it will be hard to watch thanks to the ever-increasing amount of make-up worn by Bill Maher.

jesus the mexican boi wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Here's the trailer. It looks incredibly stupid. Choosing the most fanatical examples of every religion, to make a case that "religious people are crazy" is simplistic and reductive.

Oh, pshaw... it's not that bad. It's holding up the candle of you-can't-be-serious sarcasm to the simplistic theism of its fish-in-a-barrel practitioners. You find that reductive? So be it. It seems like good-natured ribbing to me. Is it a PBS NOVA production on the neuroscience of belief? No. Is it funny? Hell yeah.

Ok, maybe not reductive, but way too easy and simplistic. A more challenging film would have Maher put his own atheism to the test by actually investigating the aspects of religion that the majority of people believe and value, rather than the radical sects. Instead it's him going around saying, "Y'see, that's why I don't believe in God. These people are CRAZY!"

Morgan Spurlock is a scholar by comparison.

And not one thing in that trailer made me even smirk.

I think it's easy to pick on Evangelicals and ex-addicts who make Jesus their new addiction, but not all Christians are obnoxious Bible-thumpers, just like not all liberals are unwashed vegan hipsters with "Bush = Hitler" t-shirts. If you take the worst of any sector, you're gonna find something to mock-- but the basic Christian principles are ones of loving and caring and just being a good person. Yeah, well fuck that.

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.

I've never been a fan of Bill Maher, but the trailer for his film made me laugh my ass off. Anything that can get under the skin of "true believers" warms the cockles of my heart. For me, the best take on this subject so far is Brian Flemming's wonderful film The God Who Wasn't There.

For me this is the rankest nonsense. First off I notice the conspicuous absense of one particular religion in general among those called in for lasering. If this were a film about mixing politics and the administration of state and the terrible global problems it can cause, the pic would look a lot different. So much for "balls", Maher and Newberg.

So all this really is is Maher getting pancaked up to squint & arch his eyebrows and engaging in scene after scene wherein he sniggles & belittles every subject for interview unfortunate enough to participate... and tries to look sauve, which he unfortunately isn't. He's an annoying little nebbish who had a great run there for awhile during the dark days 2001-2006.

But a film like this which seems to serve no purpose other than snicker at spiritual people for what they believe in their private lives for no other reason that it defies scientific logic.. I think it's rude and borders on being philosophically unamerican. Or maybe unLiberal.. I'm searching for the phrase. Because who cares what people believe-- they're gonna come back on a white horse during the rapture, that if they follow commandments they'll avoid hell, that if they pray god will hear them, whatever-- so long as they're not hurting anybody. This country is supposed to be founded on the idea that you can believe whatever the fuck you want to believe without getting harassed. You're supposed to be respected. Making fun of/taking on religious-based legislation that is impinging on (or resulting in the killing of) others/nulling the idea of the seperation of church and state, is one thing. Attacking religion itself is uncool, and all it'll do is serve the idea among the fanatics that the media is at war with spirituality, and serve to make quiet, apolitical believers more vulnerable to the radical shits who want to ratchet up the culture wars. Maher is going to grow the Shit problem, not effectively minimize it.

Yeah I'm agnostic at most, but I would never go up to someone who goes about their business not bothering or hurting anybody, and try to talk them out of their spirituality, or make them a public laughingstock by making fun of the myth in their religion. Let people believe whatever they want to believe so long as they believe it amongst themselves and aren't bothering anybody. The world reduced to it's physical nuts and bolts isn't awfully satisfying... most people work godawful jobs, are surround by epic failure in their own lives and in those of their kids & relatives, have no connection to a satisfying aesthetic life, know they're not doing anything important with themselves and when they die no one will remember them for anything they did... everybody's got to latch on to something that feels untransitory, and life completely divorced from eternity (or good sex, or good drugs, or access to variegated culture which-- trust me-- can wear thin in phases) in one form or another, be it philosophy, art/aesthetics, or relgion, can be distinctly unsatisfying for anyone. A hollywood millionaire walking around snickering at and attacking the method that factory grunts deal with their miserable lives feels distinctly wrong to me. The only folks this movie will register to are, just like Expelled, those already on board with its ideas.

Anyhow, the left just fired back an equally idiotic salvo vs Expelled.

Sweet, another movie from a truly annoying man.

HerrSchreck wrote:Attacking religion itself is uncool

Good god dude, what a bunch of malarkey! Religion is as deserving a target of lampooning as any and maybe more than most, considering it's the root of all problems with human "civilization" today. Ah sweet baby jesus, to hell with it -- Yeats said it far better than I ever could -- "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Amen. I'll go watch Life of Brian for the umpteenth time and raise my spirit...

Galen Young wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Attacking religion itself is uncool

Good god dude, what a bunch of malarkey! Religion is as deserving a target of lampooning as any and maybe more than most, considering it's the root of all problems with human "civilization" today.

People in power using religion as mechanism to further their own priorities are the problem. Religion itself isn't.

In my book, attacking religion is fine. Religion induces fear and inspires judgment of the worst kind from it's followers. But attacking spirituality is another issue, and it seems to me that from the trailer and what Bill has said that he wouldn't be beneath doing that either.

That is such a horrible blanket judgment. Churches do great things for people in need, the homeless, the less-fortunate, those in danger from spouses or loved ones. They are a safe haven for people who often have nowhere else to turn.

I'm not a believer, but just as what I believe should have no bearing on how others treat me, it should go both ways. I don't believe foreign policy or laws should be passed based on religious tenets, because that would be forcing someone to accept one religion over another or none at all. But there's no reason to be petty and say that all religions are stupid just because you don't believe in them. A person's faith is a personal choice much like the decision to have an abortion or how they cut their hair-- you don't have a say in it, and pretending that you do just makes you look like an asshole. So long as it doesn't negatively effect others, let it go.

domino harvey wrote:That is such a horrible blanket judgment. Churches do great things for people in need, the homeless, the less-fortunate, those in danger from spouses or loved ones. They are a safe haven for people who often have nowhere else to turn.

I'm not a believer, but just as what I believe should have no bearing on how others treat me, it should go both ways. I don't believe foreign policy or laws should be passed based on religious tenets, because that would be forcing someone to accept one religion over another or none at all. But there's no reason to be petty and say that all religions are stupid just because you don't believe in them. A person's faith is a personal choice much like the decision to have an abortion or how they cut their hair-- you don't have a say in it, and pretending that you do just makes you look like an asshole. So long as it doesn't negatively effect others, let it go.

See, that's what's not really divulged just yet, at least not on the basis of the admittedly deceiving trailer. Seems to me it's more interested in addressing the issue of separation of church and state, with Maher's usual smugly irrevent tone, than about an across the board slam on religion. Guess we won't know for sure until October.

Galen Young wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Attacking religion itself is uncool

Good god dude, what a bunch of malarkey! Religion is as deserving a target of lampooning as any and maybe more than most, considering it's the root of all problems with human "civilization" today. Ah sweet baby jesus, to hell with it -- Yeats said it far better than I ever could -- "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Amen. I'll go watch Life of Brian for the umpteenth time and raise my spirit...

or,

"dominis domine, what an ass I am..."

Pax mobiscum my son...

I wonder how this compares to Maher.

No one makes me change the channel faster than Lewis Black. How does he have a career?

Who cares if people believe [that the earth is flat]? Believing [the earth is flat] makes people feel more secure in their knowledge and in their community. As long as they're not hurting anybody, people shouldn't be questioned. That's just not the Progressive thing to do! Anyway, it's not like there's a benefit to knowing [the earth is round].

Way to totally miss the point!

HerrSchreck wrote:Way to totally miss the point!

No, I'm just willing to rock the boat. I don't think we should eliminate things from the public discourse because the religious right might strike back or because factory workers need something to desperately cling to. It's the same elitism that you're accusing Maher of to think that the poor little factory workers can't handle this movie.

I don't think anyone said that believers couldn't handle the movie, the question is more why the filmmakers felt the need to make a movie mocking an institution that is responsible for a lot of good in people's lives on a base, community level. I agree that organized religion is ridiculous, that's why I don't belong to any faith or church. But I still respect Christians and other faithfully devoted persons who dedicate themselves to bettering their community and helping out those in need through the church.

Grand Illusion wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Way to totally miss the point!

No, I'm just willing to rock the boat. I don't think we should eliminate things from the public discourse because the religious right might strike back or because factory workers need something to desperately cling to. It's the same elitism that you're accusing Maher of to think that the poor little factory workers can't handle this movie.

No, you're just still missing the point. That boat's been rocked a thousand times and the only thing new to it is You, apparently. You will make no breakthrough by bugging or laughing at people. Rhere's nothing you can do or say that the average believer didn't encounter in their high school textbooks or at work or on television. You or Maher have nothing new to add to the same old sad story. Your urgency "If only I could sit down and make them see it the way I do I could make this world awesome" is even more naive than the belief in god.

Missionaries thought the same thing-- go out and proselytize the world to get them to wake the fuck up to Our Homogenous Ideal of the perfect western soul. Think how much more cultural integrity would have remained in Mexico without the Missionaries. Let people just have their own cultures. Don't intrude if they're not intruding on you.

People get dangerous when they get so excited by their own picture of their own intelligence that they want to go out and Perfecting The Masses.

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?