Go to:  George Carlin      Atheism      Mormonism      John and Mary Pay a Visit      Celebrity Atheists  

"It is going to be quite fun watching film critics  tackle Religulous, the anti-religion (re: not anti-organized religion) documentary from director Larry Charles (Borat) and Bill Maher.

Reviewing this film practically demands that one states his / her beliefs about God — sort of like with Iraq War docs, but, you know, bigger — and Maher doesn’t leave much wiggle room..."


See http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/08/05/religulous-reviews-hit-web/

 Links       BILL MAHER'S PAGE               GEORGE CARLIN DEAD AT 71

    A negative review   of Maher's  BLOCKBUSTER  film / Mockumentary, Religulous.
By By Sean P. Means of the Salt Lake Tribune...  "My argument against the movie is..."

  R e v i e w:  Maher takes on religion but sounds like he's preaching to the agnostic choir

    Bill Maher claims to be just asking questions about religion in his new documentary Religulous. And to back up that humble statement, the opening credits play to Pete Townshend's classic lyric: "They call me The Seeker / I've been searching low and high / I won't get to get what I'm after / Till the day I die."

    But, as this strident, though often entertaining, rant unfolds, Maher shows that he already knows the answer. His answer, anyway: Religion is a dangerous sham "selling an invisible product" and is a danger to our continued existence on Earth. And Maher and director Larry Charles ("Borat") spend the next 101 minutes determined to convince you they're right.

    Maher begins at Megiddo, Israel, the spot that Christians believe will be the site of the end of the world - Armageddon. The problem with believing in the end of the world, Maher says, is that when the Bible was written, only God could pull it off.

    Now, between nuclear weapons and rampant pollution, human beings can destroy the world themselves. "And if there's anything I hate more than prophecy," Maher quips, "it's self-fulfilling prophecy."

    From that opening, Maher then goes on a world tour of religious sites, from Jerusalem to Kentucky's Creation Museum - which tries to show the scientific argument behind the Biblical story of creation and includes animatronic dinosaurs and humans frolicking together. Maher finds much to mock as he interviews an evangelical minister, an ex-gay activist and the guy who plays Jesus at the Holy Land Experience, an Orlando theme park where the crucifixion is re-enacted daily.

    Maher plays the bad boy often, getting his camera crew ejected from the Vatican and property owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, and portraying one of the regular loonies at London's Hyde Park as he describes the tenets of Scientology. But he finds some sympathetic ears, including people with such seemingly oxymoronic titles as "Vatican scientist" and "gay Muslim activist."

    Maher doesn't listen to his interview subjects, opting instead to drop wisecracks to make them squirm uncomfortably in front of the cameras. There's plenty to laugh about throughout Religulous, which proves Maher's point that all religions have beliefs that sound - when described in his archly sarcastic tone - to be a little goofy.

    But the laughs are shut off in the final reel, when he unloads on the violence done in the name of religion (complete with images of 9/11, suicide bombings and George W. Bush's invocations of God) and urges humanity to "grow up or die."

  In the end, Maher suffers from the same rigidity of thought - the certitude that he's right and those who disagree are wrong - that he dislikes in people of faith. That makes Religulous a dispiriting experience, even if you agree with him.  

Article Last Updated: 10/02/2008 06:58:39 PM MDT

Mr. Means' movie review can be found at sltrib.com [external link] and is posted here as background to the below email exchange.  Emphasis, Editor of NowScape.com.

Bill Maher - RELIGULOUS    Send email

FIJA Home Page Fully Informed Jury Association

From: "Sean P. Means" <spmeans@sltrib.com>
To: Josh_P1988@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Salt Lake Tribune: Review: Maher takes on religion but sounds like he's preaching to the agnostic choir
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:27:06

Let me educate you on the meaning of the word "context," since you take my words out of context.

To quote the whole paragraph you cite:

"From that opening, Maher then goes on a world tour of religious sites, from Jerusalem to Kentucky's Creation Museum - which tries to show the scientific argument behind the Biblical story of creation and includes animatronic dinosaurs and humans frolicking together. Maher finds much to mock as he interviews an evangelical minister, an ex-gay activist and the guy who plays Jesus at the Holy Land Experience, an Orlando theme park where the crucifixion is re-enacted daily."

Nowhere do I say that I agree that there is a "scientific argument behind the Biblical story of creation" (because I don't agree). I only cite the place that "tries to show" (emphasis on the word "tries") such an argument as one of the places Maher visits during the course of his film.

My argument against the movie is not because of Maher's opinion of religion, but the manner in which he expresses that opinion - which I found to be as hectoring and intolerant as the religious people he mocks. If that means I'm "full of it," then so be it.

Sincerely,

 Sean P. Means,

 movie critic, The Salt Lake Tribune

Dear Mr. Means,

Thank you. It is in this context that you say:
"I only cite the place that 'tries to show' such an argument as one of the places Maher visits during the course of his film"... with emphasis on the word "tries".

I'm not sure I'm able to parse your sentence, but it seems -- no -- it *is* that you say again that this argument exists. "THE scientific argument behind the Biblical story of creation."   That's just plain wrong!  That was the point of my letter to you.  Again, you refer to such an argument ! There is no such argument, for christ's sake!

In your review you refer to an argument behind the Biblical story of creation.

Most apologists / believers find it difficult to have their goofy beliefs made fun of. When they discover that their goofy machinations are the subject of mockery, they find fault with the manner of delivery of the message -- that message being that they are uneducated or intellectually dishonest, as it must be one of these two (What else could be the cause?).
 

<               ^     Planet KOLOB

Seldom do they consider the meaning of the message.

You write for a Mormon mouthpiece-rag. No doubt you are a Mormon, that's my guess.

Are you a Mormon or are you only spiritual?

And if you are LDS, do you find it offensive that people make fun of your beliefs and of you, belittle and mock you for falsely believing yourself to be a space alien from the planet KOLOB?

You misunderstood my other point  also.  I said that "you are full of it".  Your reply "If that  [ the manner in which Bill Maher expresses his opinion of religion ] means I'm 'full of it,' then so be it. That's your opinion." 

That's not my opinion, Mr. Means.  My opinion is the opposite.  Politeness  and education don't seem to work!  Maybe insults don't work either, but they just might make the apologist think, perhaps only a little.

Only a fool would have a false religion, my friend.

Sincerely,
Josh