Link to the thread on 'Bill Maher -"Religion stops people from thinking.", And, speaking of not THINKING...' (dated Feb 18 - Mar 8, 2005).

Link to the thread for Larry Charles's last film, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006).

Link to my blog posts on this film (dated May 20 - Sep 10, 2007).

- - -

Summer Comedies: Religulous Stars Maher
Here's the one-sheet for the upcoming comedy Religulous, which has been described as "the nonfiction film about the greatest fiction ever told." This anti-religious interview doc springs from the fevered brows of producer-star Bill Maher and director Larry Charles. Lionsgate opens it in NYC and LA on June 20 and nationwide on July 2.
Statements from filmmakers Bill Maher and Larry Charles are on the jump . . .
Anne Thompson, Variety, January 31

As a HUGE Bill Maher fan, I cannot wait to see this one!

'Religulous' shifted to October
Lionsgate's world religions doc "Religulous," helmed by Larry Charles ("Borat") and starring Bill Maher, has been moved from an early summer release to Oct. 3.
Variety, May 11

- - -

FWIW, that puts it right smack dab in the middle of the Jewish High Holy Days (which, this year, take place between September 30 and October 9). It's also a few days after the end of Ramadan, the Muslim fast. I don't believe there are any particularly major Christian holidays around that time, on either calendar. (For the Orthodox, the four big fast-feast seasons are Lent/Pascha, which just came to an end; Nativity, which doesn't begin until mid-November; the Apostles Fast, in late June; and Dormition, in early August. An October 3 release date is just about the perfect time to release an anti-religious movie in a way that will offend our sensibilities the least, since it falls almost precisely in the middle of the longest gap between fast-feast seasons -- one-and-a-half months after Dormition ends and one-and-a-half months before Nativity begins.)

Wow! So Maher chose a release date calculated not to offend Christians, and especially Orthodox!




Or perhaps the question whether or not to offend has not occurred to him? Ever?

Yes, because--of course--we are less Christian when there aren't special days on the calendar.

Um.

So, he's belittling us by NOT releasing the film around some special day?

Either way, I'M OFFENDED!

(that makes me a real Christian, right?)

Alan Thomas wrote:
: Yes, because--of course--we are less Christian when there aren't special days on the calendar.

Well, I wouldn't say the bathroom is less a part of my house simply because someone takes a dump in there -- but I'd still rather they do it in there than in my kitchen or my bedroom.

SDG wrote:
: So, he's belittling us by NOT releasing the film around some special day?

Heh. Yeah, exactly!

Heh, exactly!


Duude. That is a bizarrely wonderful-yet-obscene analogy, redolent with incarnational thinking in all its, um, rigor. I am so reminded of the chapter on the bathroom in Thomas Howard's transcendent Hallowed Be This House (now sold under the title Splendor in the Ordinary: Your Home as a Holy Place). Really.

Darn! I was excited to see it ... guess I'll have to wait a bit longer.

Don't have particularly high hopes for this one. Good comedy comes from incisive understanding, and Maher has always been sloppy at best when it comes to just about any subject. When it comes to religion, he's downright embarrassingly off-target most of the time.

So I see somebody's twins haven't started potty training. All I can say is, Swiffer sells an anti-bacterial cleaning solution for the WetJet...

As someone who's far from a faith literalist, I have to politely disagree ... I'm with Maher on most everything.

Bill Maher's new website: Disbeliefnet.com.

And now the trailer.

Husker, I'm curious what you think of Maher's website (as well as what you mean by "faith literalist").

I don't believe in the Bible literally ...

I'm not sure what that means.

I don't know anyone who believes that Jesus is literally a door. Or that the Good Samaritan was a historical person.

I don't believe that the six days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour days. Or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale or big fish.

On the other hand, presumably there are some things in the Bible that you would accept as literally true. For example, that St. Paul met St. Peter in Jerusalem, as narrated in Acts and related in Galatians 1-2. Or that King David reigned in Jerusalem a thousand years before Christ.

So. Some things in the Bible are literally true. Others aren't. That leaves me not sure how to approach a blanket statement like "I don't believe in the Bible literally."

Do you literally believe that God is love?

Is there some other, non-literal way in which you prefer to "believe in the Bible"? What might that mean?

I'm also curious what you think of Maher's site.

Without getting into logistics ... I believe in the spirit of the Bible and its spiritual message. I do not believe Jesus is THE son on God or that he literally died for our sins as some replacement. I know all of this sets off people's alarms, but don't waste your breath.

I think Maher's site is kind of funny ... I generally agree with a lot of what he says in general.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37791

One of the first reviews, written by a Christian no less.

Compare the American and Canadian posters. The Canadian one is more explicitly (anti-)religious. It also doesn't make use of Bill Maher's face at all. True, we don't get his HBO show at all. But surely his celebrity is a known commodity here...?

Patrick Goldstein interviews Bill Maher and posts a 53-second clip of Maher arguing with a theme-park Jesus. Because, like, that's where *I* always go for answers when I have deep theological questions.

I saw the trailer today at a theater. As I watched, I was reminded of a comment that the principal of our Christian elementary/junior high school here once said. She said that the most difficult children to talk with are those who have moved from rebellion to mocking the faith. (Psalm 1) If the trailer is any indication, the film does not seek answers from those who could answer real concerns/questions, but rather looks for the most absurd representations of religious faith and then uses that to mock the real thing. I recognize that there is humor in such absurdity, but for some reason I'm not sure that this is only innocent fun. I hesitate to even say that since I try very hard to not form an opinion about a film from the trailer. So...after October 3 we'll know.

Denny

Now showing in a theatre near Los Angeles...?

Do not blaspheme Theme Park Jesus!!!

Robert Koehler, Variety:

Skeptics unite: You only have to lose your inhibitions. That, in sum, is the underlying message of Bill Maher and Larry Charles' brilliant, incendiary "Religulous," in which comedian/talkshow host Maher inquires of the religious faithful and finds them severely wanting. By providing an example to other non-believers, Maher is, um, hell-bent on launching an even more aggressive conversation on the legitimacy of religion than he has on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher." Sure to be a major talking point in Toronto and destined for tons of free media, docu looks primed for serious numbers in theatrical and vid heaven.

[ snip ]

Standing at the spot where believers say Armageddon will be waged -- Megiddo, Israel -- Maher opens his case with a grim warning that those who believe in a so-called "end of days" may be making a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scene also suggests the considerable globe-trotting Charles, Maher and his crew did for the film, from heartland America to Amsterdam to the Holy Land to the Vatican, and also establishes Charles and lenser Anthony Hardwick's method of covering every segment with two cameras.

Maher devotes the first hour to Christian faith, weighted toward evangelism, with amusing personal recollections of growing up Catholic with a Jewish mom. Not missing a beat, he even interviews his mom, Julie (who died after filming), and sister, Kathy, in the New Jersey church they attended, uncovering exactly why his parents left the church -- their use of birth control.

[ snip ]

To the film's credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming; skeptics may be surprised (as Maher is) by the occasionally smart replies to his queries.

[ snip ]

Ending minutes, though, will catch auds up short: Suddenly, the laughs die down, and as in his closing monologues on "Real Time," Maher turns deadly serious with a final statement that will stir raging arguments in theater lobbies.

Lou Lumenick, New York Post:

I feel obliged to report that it rivals "The Aristocrats'' as the funniest, and most offensive, documentary ever made. Maher, a former Roman Catholic whose interviewees include his Jewish mother, is in top caustic form as he sets out to expose all forms of faith as scams.

John Nolte, This Is Dirty Harry's Place:

Caught a special screening of Bill Maher’s Religulous today. Review will hopefully be up tomorow.

Obviously, I’ll have a lot to say, but even for liberal scoundrels like Bill Maher and Larry Charles, the idea that they would present the thoroughly debunked Horus - Jesus link as fact was a breathtaking moment of intellectual dishonesty.

Should I go into hiding?

Why...has Maher been known to have people taken out?

Very good, Jeff.

Denny

Let me guess this straight...this old, washed-up pothead "finds religion wanting"? What a sorry excuse of a joke of a man he is.

Mr. Maher, you have been weighed in the scales, and are found wanting.

Do remarks like this represent your idea of a Christian attitude toward Bill Maher?

Anybody want to post a comment on Wells' latest post?

It starts like this:



And this... after a season of relentless high praise for a candidate who calls himself a Christian.

Karina Longworth @ SpoutBlog:

Hopeful that [Bill Maher's] feature-length collaboration with Larry Charles would offer a similar balance writ large, I went in to Religulous with an open mind –– which is more than can be said of Maher. The comedian-turned-political pundit/committed agnostic, and star and producer of this non-fiction film, explains early in the picture that he thinks organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” Writing off the contents of the bible and all historical narratives of faith as “fairy tales,” he says he’s on a journey in search of an explanation as to how otherwise rational adults can buy into this kiddie stuff. “It’s too easy,” he complains.

Unfortunately, this last line turns out to be auto-critique: as Maher and Charles hop from backwoods America to international holy hot spots and back again. Maher continually flips the script, here using serious questioning not as an end, but a means to immature, unenlightening mockery. It quickly becomes apparent that Maher’s journey is not about finding out what makes religious people tick, but about using the tics of mostly fringe religious people to prop up the thesis Maher came in with. Which is––in a nutshell, but totally without irony––that everyday religious practice will soon result in global apocalypse.

Let's just say that I have been kinder to Bill Maher than he has been to Christians.

And is it your personal crusade to pick fights with me on this message board? Your nitpicking, petulant, and whiny attitude is one of the reasons I very rarely frequent MBs any more.

But whatever makes you feel better about yourself, I reckon.

Reflecting upon the 1948 film, Monsieur Vincent (SDG's review), the other day I was wondering if these critics who make statements like: organized religion of any kind is “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” are familiar with the likes of Saint Vincent de Paul. This priest gave his life to helping the poor and creating an instituition that is still in effect today. Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, really any kind of aid to the poor and destitute that is organized can be traced back to this selfless priest. And he is just one example of Christians who have given their lives to start hospitals, schools, orphanages... the list goes on. Are people like Bill Maher intentionally ignorant of the lives of the saints or do they know about them and somehow dismiss the effects their lives have had on the world? I believe in every generation God has given saints to the world. They are the proof of His existence. They are often hidden but they are there nonetheless.

I raised a similar point with an atheist friend of mine. And his response essentially boiled down to sure, Christians have done a lot of good things in this world. However, it's not their Christianity that necessarily made them do it -- one can do moral and beneficent deeds, and not be a Christian. I imagine that Maher follows a similar belief.

But by the same token, then, Christians who do evil nasty destructive things aren't necessarily motivated by Christianity to do them.

Jim Janknegt wrote:
: Are people like Bill Maher intentionally ignorant of the lives of the saints or do they know about them and somehow dismiss the effects their lives have had on the world?

I don't know if Maher gets into this in the film, but in interviews, I believe he has said that even the "good" religious people are just doing it because they want to be "saved", so it's all basically selfish. And yeah, he would probably say that basic common decency is not necessarily a religious thing. So he would probably say that the costs of religion outweigh the benefits.

Yes, the logic does cut both ways, doesn't it?

And a lot of people join the U.S. Army because of the education benefits. Does that mean soldiers are basically selfish? If I do a good deed, why should my motives be of any importance to Maher?

Western religions attacked in film "Religulous"
Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, are not addressed, due to the time constraints of a movie and the lack of relevance to U.S. audiences, the filmmakers said. . . .
The film seems sure to draw criticism from religious groups, particularly during a U.S. presidential race that includes Sarah Palin, Alaska governor and religious conservative, as Republican candidate John McCain's running mate.
"I think if we can create some sort of debate before the election it may actually help defeat McCain and Palin," Charles said in a separate Toronto news conference. "Tens of millions of us don't think a lot about religion either way."
Reuters, September 9

- - -

I would love to hear Maher and Charles -- or Jeffrey Wells, for that matter -- explain why Sarah Palin's religion is so much more deserving of ridicule than, say, Jeremiah Wright's (and thus, by a 20-year association at least, Barack Obama's).

Look Who's Irrational Now
"You can't be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god," comedian and atheist Bill Maher said earlier this year on "Late Night With Conan O'Brien." . . .
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us. . . .
On Oct. 3, Mr. Maher debuts "Religulous," his documentary that attacks religious belief. He talks to Hasidic scholars, Jews for Jesus, Muslims, polygamists, Satanists, creationists, and even Rael -- prophet of the Raelians -- before telling viewers: "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live."
But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O'Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman -- a quintuple bypass survivor -- to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn't accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: "I don't believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory." He has told CNN's Larry King that he won't take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn't even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.
Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are."
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, Wall Street Journal, September 19

That's a fabulous article. I blogged it earlier today, attaching G.K. Chesterton's famous maxim,

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."

It seems very strange to me that people who profess not to "think a lot about religion either way" have spend an enormous amount of time and money to create a film that expresses a very definite point-of-view about religion.

Is he directly lying to his audience? Or does he somehow mean he has not thought deeply about religion, but thinks he has something relevant to say about that validity of it? Either way, he completely undermines his own credibility for those who don't have an axe to grind against religion.

To be fair to Charles, I think he means the film is trying to reach the tens of millions who "don't think a lot about religion," but not that he includes himself among those tens of millions ... although judging from some of what's reportedly in the film, he might have thought about it rather less than he imagines.

Letterman Interview

anyone can use the YOUTUBE tag...

Oh thanks,

I wasn't sure if it was one of those "contributing members only things" (I couldn't get my recent baby photos to show on an other thread, so I assumed that that was the case).

Matt

CrimsonLine wrote:
: That's a fabulous article. I blogged it earlier today, attaching G.K. Chesterton's famous maxim,
: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."

FWIW, at least two other blogs I've seen linking to that article have said that Chesterton DIDN'T actually say that. Might be one of those "Play it again, Sam" kind of deals.

Pretty much the final word on this question.

Strangely, I relocated that article (which I had read before) by the simple expedient of Googling the words "Chesterton didn't say" (without quote marks). It's the #1 match -- despite the fact that, apparently, two of my three search terms ("didn't" and "say") appear nowhere on the page. How scary is Google?

SDG wrote:
: Pretty much the final word on this question.

Love it.

So, in Jesus Seminar terms, this quote would merit a pink, rather than a red or grey or black?

: How scary is Google?

Very.