Religulous
I've never been a big fan of Bill Maher. He's always struck me as condescending and arrogant, and that's to someone who tends to agree with his political views more often than I disagree with them. Granted, I don't watch Real Time all that often, so maybe I'm not getting the full picture. But, after seeing a sneak preview of his new documentary, Religulous, last night, I have to say that my prior opinion of him was very accurate.
Maher is an atheist, and the obstinate goal of his documentary is to explore why people have religious faith despite overwhelming scientific evidence that such faith is irrational. The logical way to go about that is to sit down and interview theologians and religious scholars. But that way wouldn't provide much in the way of humor. To get laughs, it's much easier to talk to the extremists and the laypeople, and to insult them to their faces.
Among the people Maher interviews are the leader of an ex-gay ministry and the head of the Creation Museum--hardly reprehensive of mainstream religious thought in this country. And even then, he seems to spend more time belittling and insulting them than trying to find out exactly why they believe what they believe. In fact the same pattern is repeated throughout the film. He sits down with someone, and instead of actually talking to them, laughs at their beliefs to their face, then cut away to some "ironic" film clip. Occasionally, that works. Usually, it's just superfluous (for example, during the interview with the ex-gay minister, there's a cut to an old gay porn film--during a discussion of homosexuality in animals. Why?).
Maher does actually talk to one prominent scientist who is also a Christian. But that interview is maybe given a minute of screen time, and it's mostly Maher talking. He barely gives the guy a chance to speak or explain his views. Of course, Maher isn't interested in actually exploring why people have faith. It's much easier for him to lampoon an amusement park worker for not being up to speed on obscure Egyptian mythology than to talk to a scholar who is aware of how much the story of Christ resembles ancient legends and still believes anyway.
After the Christian segment, Maher goes on to insult Scientology and especially Mormonism. Now, I believe both of those are complete nonsense, but it would have been nice during, at least the Mormon segment, to talk to someone from the Church. Instead, he talks to a couple of ex-Mormons, plays a couple of clips from Mormon cartoons, and moves on to Judaism. In true Maher fashion, he ignores legitimate Jewish scholars in order to interview a rabbi who participated in the Holocaust denier’s conference in Iran a couple years back.
He doesn't even bother interviewing any American Muslims. Instead, he heads to Amsterdam, where he devotes as much time to a guy who believes that pot is an essential tool of religious participation as he does anyone else he interviews over there. In this segment, we finally get an extended conversation with a non-extremist theologian, namely a Dutch Muslim cleric. Of course, this can't stand, so when the cleric gets a cell phone call halfway through the interview, Maher makes sure there's some deeply insulting text on screen mocking the guy. Hardy har har.
Maher finally wraps the movie up in Israel, where he wanders around by himself at the end, regurgitating a whole bunch of anti-religious ideas that seem like they'd be more at home in a high school debate class than at the conclusion of a high-profile documentary. This segment bugged me most of all, because after spending the previous 90 minutes seeming to deliberately avoid talking to anyone who might seriously challenge his viewpoint or provide actual insight, he stands around proclaiming all religious beliefs foolish and dangerous. He accuses everyone with faith of being a mindless sheep, and people who are moderately religious (i.e. me) of being Mafia wives.
I truly don't think it's ever occurred to him that not every Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu--which didn't even rate a mention) merely regurgitates what the Bible and their ministers tell them. There are millions of people of faith who have deeply, seriously considered their beliefs and the existence of God. They have struggled with doubt, and came to the conclusion that, yes, God is real, and continue to think for themselves. People like me don't exist in Maher's world. Either you agree with him completely, or you are a mindless idiot.
Even more appalling was his implication at the very end that the world would be a much better, more peaceful place if all religion just disappeared. No one is going to deny that horrible atrocities have been committed, are being committed, and will be committed in the name of God. But there are certain people who are ruthless, violent, and evil in spite of religion, not because of it. Yes, many of them have used God as a scapegoat to justify their horrors. But should religion vanish, those men would find another reason. What role did religious fervor have in the wholesale slaughter committed by Stalin, by Mao, by Pol Pot? Without religion, the world would still be a dark and violent place. We'd just have one less excuse for it being that way.
I fully expect Religulous to live up to its coming billing as "the most controversial film of the year!" I expect it to be condemned sight unseen, and to be the subject of numerous e-mail chain letters that will make the rounds for years. All that will miss the point. If people watch this movie, they'll realize that Maher does nothing more than preach to the converted. If he wanted to change people's minds, he would have engaged in real debate, not merely laugh at buffoons.
Maher is an atheist, and the obstinate goal of his documentary is to explore why people have religious faith despite overwhelming scientific evidence that such faith is irrational. The logical way to go about that is to sit down and interview theologians and religious scholars. But that way wouldn't provide much in the way of humor. To get laughs, it's much easier to talk to the extremists and the laypeople, and to insult them to their faces.
Among the people Maher interviews are the leader of an ex-gay ministry and the head of the Creation Museum--hardly reprehensive of mainstream religious thought in this country. And even then, he seems to spend more time belittling and insulting them than trying to find out exactly why they believe what they believe. In fact the same pattern is repeated throughout the film. He sits down with someone, and instead of actually talking to them, laughs at their beliefs to their face, then cut away to some "ironic" film clip. Occasionally, that works. Usually, it's just superfluous (for example, during the interview with the ex-gay minister, there's a cut to an old gay porn film--during a discussion of homosexuality in animals. Why?).
Maher does actually talk to one prominent scientist who is also a Christian. But that interview is maybe given a minute of screen time, and it's mostly Maher talking. He barely gives the guy a chance to speak or explain his views. Of course, Maher isn't interested in actually exploring why people have faith. It's much easier for him to lampoon an amusement park worker for not being up to speed on obscure Egyptian mythology than to talk to a scholar who is aware of how much the story of Christ resembles ancient legends and still believes anyway.
After the Christian segment, Maher goes on to insult Scientology and especially Mormonism. Now, I believe both of those are complete nonsense, but it would have been nice during, at least the Mormon segment, to talk to someone from the Church. Instead, he talks to a couple of ex-Mormons, plays a couple of clips from Mormon cartoons, and moves on to Judaism. In true Maher fashion, he ignores legitimate Jewish scholars in order to interview a rabbi who participated in the Holocaust denier’s conference in Iran a couple years back.
He doesn't even bother interviewing any American Muslims. Instead, he heads to Amsterdam, where he devotes as much time to a guy who believes that pot is an essential tool of religious participation as he does anyone else he interviews over there. In this segment, we finally get an extended conversation with a non-extremist theologian, namely a Dutch Muslim cleric. Of course, this can't stand, so when the cleric gets a cell phone call halfway through the interview, Maher makes sure there's some deeply insulting text on screen mocking the guy. Hardy har har.
Maher finally wraps the movie up in Israel, where he wanders around by himself at the end, regurgitating a whole bunch of anti-religious ideas that seem like they'd be more at home in a high school debate class than at the conclusion of a high-profile documentary. This segment bugged me most of all, because after spending the previous 90 minutes seeming to deliberately avoid talking to anyone who might seriously challenge his viewpoint or provide actual insight, he stands around proclaiming all religious beliefs foolish and dangerous. He accuses everyone with faith of being a mindless sheep, and people who are moderately religious (i.e. me) of being Mafia wives.
I truly don't think it's ever occurred to him that not every Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu--which didn't even rate a mention) merely regurgitates what the Bible and their ministers tell them. There are millions of people of faith who have deeply, seriously considered their beliefs and the existence of God. They have struggled with doubt, and came to the conclusion that, yes, God is real, and continue to think for themselves. People like me don't exist in Maher's world. Either you agree with him completely, or you are a mindless idiot.
Even more appalling was his implication at the very end that the world would be a much better, more peaceful place if all religion just disappeared. No one is going to deny that horrible atrocities have been committed, are being committed, and will be committed in the name of God. But there are certain people who are ruthless, violent, and evil in spite of religion, not because of it. Yes, many of them have used God as a scapegoat to justify their horrors. But should religion vanish, those men would find another reason. What role did religious fervor have in the wholesale slaughter committed by Stalin, by Mao, by Pol Pot? Without religion, the world would still be a dark and violent place. We'd just have one less excuse for it being that way.
I fully expect Religulous to live up to its coming billing as "the most controversial film of the year!" I expect it to be condemned sight unseen, and to be the subject of numerous e-mail chain letters that will make the rounds for years. All that will miss the point. If people watch this movie, they'll realize that Maher does nothing more than preach to the converted. If he wanted to change people's minds, he would have engaged in real debate, not merely laugh at buffoons.