College Media Network

Religion is Religulous

Bill Maher questions religions, believers, makes enemies along the way

Thomas Smith | The News Record

Print this article

Published: Sunday, October 12, 2008

Updated: Sunday, October 12, 2008

Religulous

Photo courtesy of MCT Campus

If the first two humans to walk to earth – Adam and Eve – created two boys, Cain and Abel, how/where did the rest of human life as we know it come from?

That’s the question that prompted my religion teacher (yes, I went to a catholic school) to kick me out of class, sending me straight to the dean’s office in 11th grade. I know, it was just a question, right? Apparently it was more along the lines of blasphemy.

Bill Maher employs this very same strategy in his new documentary Religulous, which gets him kicked off the front lawn of a Mormon temple in Salt Lake City.

The movie questions everything about religion, including talking snakes, homosexuals, the Sabbath, evolution, bogus prophets, violence and various “holy” locations around the world.

“I’m just asking questions,” Maher explains in his first forum scene with members of the Truckers Chapel in North Carolina. One actually walked out based on the fact that he didn’t want any part in Maher’s movie if its basis is “messing with my God.”

That’s the issue here: religious zealots, fundamentalists and your average, everyday churchgoer will flip out on you for questioning their faith and are completely content in believing in something that can’t be understood or even proved.

I once heard someone say that asking questions is a sign of strength, and not asking them is a sign of weakness. I guess that applies to everything except religion.

Religulous is only showing at select locations – The Esquire Theatre and AMC Newport on the Levee 20 in the greater Cincinnati area – for obvious reasons. Religion is an extremely sensitive subject for those who believe in it.

Maher believes that “religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity,” and is a “neurological disorder.” Well said.

Religulous examines how truly silly the idea of religion is, no matter which one you believe in – constantly prompting the question of why someone would believe in anything without evidence.

Last time I checked, you can’t convict someone of murder based on the fact that someone wrote it down in a book of short stories as evidence.

While Maher interviews Jeremiah Cummings, the “Ambassador for Christ” in the Worldwide International Campaign for Christ, Cummings says, “Turn to God and see what happens.” The screen fills with a clip of a suicide bombing. The irony is sometimes too much to handle.

Maher visits Democratic Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, an evangelical Christian, to ask him how he can believe in nonsense like the 10 commandments and the notion that humans walked alongside dinosaurs. Pryor tries to emphasize the “literacy” of the Bible, while Maher explains that his intelligence won’t allow him to accept that. Pryor replies with, “You don’t need to pass an IQ test to be in the U.S. Senate.”

A few seconds after realizing what he just said, the look on Pryor’s face is priceless and
Maher doesn’t need to say anything more.

Maher also visits The Holy Land Experience, an interactive biblical museum in Orlando, Fla., where he meets Jesus, an actor in the museums’ shows, who explains that the holy trinity (father, son and the holy spirit) is like water (ice, steam and liquid). Clearly impressed, Maher explains that the story of Jesus Christ and the ridiculous idea of a virgin Mary is not exclusive to just the Bible, citing the similarities of stories like Krishna of India, Mithra of Persia, Horus/Osiris of Egypt and a few others.

“Well what if you’re wrong Bill?” Jesus asked, to which Maher replied, “What if you’re wrong?”

|Another priceless facial expression and Jesus is at a loss for words.

Religulous gets particularly interesting when Maher delves into the Salman Rushdie situation – he wrote the novel The Satanic Verses and received death threats from the Iranian government and the entire Muslim community, causing widespread violence – in London in 1989.

Maher brings this up to illustrate the point that with religion, almost inevitably comes violence. He believes that religion is responsible for the world’s violence, flashing clips of demonstrations with gun-toting religious fanatics and suicide bombings. Then, he brings it back to the point that it’s ridiculous to call a death threat on someone for writing a book.
To back up his point, Maher asks several members of the Muslim community to explain why, if the word Islam translates to “peace,” the general view of the Islam is associated with violence. The answer every one of them gave: politics.

Religion within politics is what gets Maher really going: “It worries me that people are running my country who believe in a talking snake.” Not only that, but claims that America is a Christian country by politicians and Sen. John McCain saying that our founding fathers clearly had Christianity in mind is just ludicrous, says Maher.

Freedom of religion was what the founding fathers said, and Maher’s use ofThomas Jefferson’s “Christianity is the most perverse system that ever shone on man” quote has bloggers up in arms about the quote being taken out of context. Either way you look at it, separation of church and state was made for a reason, and I think that was Maher’s main point.

Religulous will certainly not please anyone of faith, or anyone who already hates Bill Maher. But for the rest of us (16 percent of the population not associated with a religion, according to a poll cited by Maher) who see the irrationality of “making a virtue out of not thinking” should get a kick out of it.

Comments

19 comments
Van
Sun Mar 15 2009 09:20
Where did Cain get his wife? Is that the so-called "brilliant" question Bill Maher says no Christian can answer? Actually the answer is simple: Cain got his wife at his mother-in laws house. Where else??
Van
Sun Feb 22 2009 09:13
For the life of me, I will never understand how any rational person can believe that their closest relative is a hairy, stinky, grunting, slobbering, knuckle-dragging, cooty-picking primate. But if Maher and friends insist, who am I to second-guess their "redigulous" low self-image?
Absolutely Agnostic
Thu Jan 15 2009 15:14
The Bible was written by people that believed that Earth was flat. Evolution is real. Religion was a used as a tool to answer life's unanswered questions. Science has now proven to be an actually accurate tool for this. Stop living in the past. It is very possible to be a good and moral person without following any religion. Maher was 100% right when he said that "religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity." Wake up and start making some progress you zealots!
Will Knot
Fri Nov 7 2008 09:01
Haven't seen the movie yet but I wonder if Maher only supports his bias. Did he give equal air time to those who can accurately and intelligently explain the message Christ actually delivered?

Because every church in the country devotes every other sermon to the virtues of agnostic skepticism? If they did, you would be right for asking this of Maher.

Rick
Mon Oct 20 2008 11:42
Haven't seen the movie yet but I wonder if Maher only supports his bias. Did he give equal air time to those who can accurately and intelligently explain the message Christ actually delivered?
Bill W.
Fri Oct 17 2008 00:41
Maher is a sack.
FAITH19
Wed Oct 15 2008 16:34
THE MOVIE IS A FAILURE!! WHEN YOU MOCK GOD HE WILL MAKE YOU PAY/ HE IS REAL AND HE IS ALIVE

RELIGULOUS BOMBS AWAY

NOW PAY YOUR CAST!!

Raven
Tue Oct 14 2008 20:21
The thing that people seem to be missing about Religulous is that Maher's intention wasn't to convert believers to atheism, but to exhort non-religious people to find their voice and not feel excluded from what is supposed to be a free and equal society. His critique of religion is unsophisticated, but if you're criticizing the film based on that, you're missing the point.
jon
Tue Oct 14 2008 16:01
the fact is the world is full of false religion and that is why it was so easy for Maher to make them look so silly. And that was his point that if people are so easily swayed by teachings so easy to refute how dangerous that can be and is. People make it so easy for themselfs to be told what to believe instead of making a proper examination for themselfs. There are lodjical answers to most all of his Q. found in the bible its just that even very religious and even socalled ministers do not know there Bible
greg
Tue Oct 14 2008 02:20
this article clearly sides with a perspective that lacks any true understanding of the mystical realities of religion. of course the institutionalization of religion has created war and greed caused by human imperfection. this has nothing to do with the ultimate reality of existence. to argue against religion you need to do more than interview a couple rednecks. i don't care how influential they are, they are not scholars or learned people of traditions older than any science. the fact is meaning supercedes matter.
No Name
Tue Oct 14 2008 01:36
Early on in the Bible only men were accounted for so it's not that there were no other women, they were just not recorded.
I Am A Thinker
Tue Oct 14 2008 00:40
R.U. Pagan: That just proves Maher and the author's point. Instead of looking up Genesis 5:4 they choose to kick anyone who questions them out.
Kevin Snyder
Tue Oct 14 2008 00:05
Where to begin...
Maher made a movie just like Borat-as an attack comedy. There are many people who would have answered, patiently, any question Maher cared to ask, but he (deliberately?) did not seek those people out-and they are easy to find. Archbishop Charles Chaput, Timothy Keller, Ravi Zacharias, the list goes on.
And, by the way, "Islam" does not translate as "peace", it means "submission".
Tired but Patient
Mon Oct 13 2008 12:31
Lets end this ridiculous debate right here: If any religious organization had to prove that their religion was true in a court of law, BEYOND A DOUBT, how would they do it???

Answers not considered in a court of law:

1) "Just believe it"
2) " God told me"
3) "Just have faith in it"

Another name
Mon Oct 13 2008 11:26
If incest was the method of further procreation, who's to say that the rest of the human race wasn't the result of the mating of Eve & Cain? Who knows what Adam was up to after the birth of his sons? I mean, considering that incest would be considered necessary to believe the Biblical version of the dawn of the human race, what's to keep us from believing that Adam didn't go & become the first shepherd & break some more taboos? Forbidden fruit, murder, incest... quite the first family! And to think that the fundamentalists believe that it is beneath us to have descended from primates as compared to that family.
Your name
Mon Oct 13 2008 09:27
So Adam begat both sons and daughters after Cain and Abel. And the human race descended from those sons and daughters. Are we to conclude therefore that the Bible condones incest?
R.U. Pagan
Mon Oct 13 2008 01:31
It's obvious that Bill Maher either didn't even read the Bible, or overlooked Genesis 5:4, before criticizing the Bible account about the children of Adam and Eve. The verse clearly shows that he "became father to sons and DAUGHTERS."
Smuggly
Mon Oct 13 2008 00:19
Actually, R.R. Evans, you won't find any answers when you question any of these religions, regardless of whatever the state of attitude you are in. Good questions demand good answers...simply put. And if there are good answers please be my guest and point me in the right direction.
R.R. Evans
Sun Oct 12 2008 23:19
The author's question, much like those posed by Maher, are roughly what one would expect from the average 8-year-old. There are answers, usually simple answers, but you won't find them if you are more interested in being smug than in actually finding them.