I don't agree this is about whether Maher acknowledges those who "forgive", much less "understand" or even "recognize" the "inherent flaws of their faith", and I surely question your belief it could be the "vast majority" who feel that way.

Maher's primary beef is with all those who are fixed, certain beyond a doubt, their faith has got it right, and that any others (even other branches of their own), and all others, are just plain wrong.

He has stated that he is not an Atheist, he just doesn't know, and like the rest of us, will find out for sure who's view of the afterlife is right, once he gets there.

Finally, the defense of all the murder, torture & enslavement perpetrated in the name of religion, simply by saying it's done good things too, cheapens & distracts from the the real issue. This mayhem has, and still does occur, only when adherents become fanatics, feeling "non-believers"/ "mis-believers", by virtue of that alone, are thus eligible for any dastardly treatment they so wish to inflict.

Even the Pope recently noted the pathology of rigid & unquestioning fundamentalism, stating that Christianity "excludes by its nature anything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text"...


 

In “Religulous,” just as on his premium-cable talk shows, Bill Maher sloshes merrily along the choppy waters of a Bermuda Triangle of wit, humor and profundity. Now, under the direction of Larry Charles (“Borat”), Maher applies his trademarked political incorrectness, ripe for punchlines masking shallow intellectualism, to the big screen, joining the ranks of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock as smug, liberal satirists disguising themselves as serious documentary filmmakers. He at least has the decency to eschew almost any shred of pretense and make “Religulous” all about his beliefs (or lack thereof) and very little about the three main religions he mocks: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Maher travels the U.S. and beyond, challenging the more fundamentalist representatives of various religions with mostly predictable (if understandable) criticisms that focus on the literal, often dogmatic interpretation of the Word—in whatever language. But his doubt never leads to true curiosity. He falls back on the convenient notion that too many die because of religious fanaticism (true enough), but he doesn’t seek out the good that organized religion offers.

What Maher fails to acknowledge, at least outwardly, is that many people of faith (maybe even a vast majority) recognize, understand and even forgive the relative and inherent flaws in their respective faiths. Maybe they see organized religion the way Winston Churchill saw democracy; it might be the worst option, except for all the others.

Weirdly, what’s most endearing about Maher is his unrepentant arrogance. Where Moore or Spurlock sometimes feign sincerity or sympathy to win over their audiences, Maher doesn’t want to be liked. He wants to be heard. With “Religulous,” he gets his wish—though not much else. 2 STARS—David Lee Simmons




COMMENTS
Click here to post a comment
by Steven | Sunday, October 05, 2008, 3:30 PM

I don't agree this is about whether Maher acknowledges those who "forgive", much less "understand" or even "recognize" the "inherent flaws of their faith", and I surely question your belief it could be the "vast majority" who feel that way.

Maher's primary beef is with all those who are fixed, certain beyond a doubt, their faith has got it right, and that any others (even other branches of their own), and all others, are just plain wrong.

He has stated that he is not an Atheist, he just doesn't know, and like the rest of us, will find out for sure who's view of the afterlife is right, once he gets there.

Finally, the defense of all the murder, torture & enslavement perpetrated in the name of religion, simply by saying it's done good things too, cheapens & distracts from the the real issue. This mayhem has, and still does occur, only when adherents become fanatics, feeling "non-believers"/ "mis-believers", by virtue of that alone, are thus eligible for any dastardly treatment they so wish to inflict.

Even the Pope recently noted the pathology of rigid & unquestioning fundamentalism, stating that Christianity "excludes by its nature anything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text"...

As a one time Maher fan who now thinks him toxically partisan, I was both excited and anxious about "Religulous". I haven't seen it, but have caught a chunk of his "down with faith" movie release tour on the talk show circuit.

I can imagine why this Maher-flick on religion might fail to resonate with those of us who crave a more thoughtful debate; as evidenced by Steven's remarks.

I also cringed when I read the line implying that the religious majority's ability to forgive and tolerate their fundamentalist colleagues is a good thing.

I like a sermon on forgiveness. I understand the importance of tolerance to Christian doctrine.

Followers of any faith who embrace those who spew hatred, discrimination, and the other vile side-effects of religious extremism in the name of forgiveness are engaged in a convenient and dangerous form of moral relativism .

I don't, however, see any responsible followers of mainstream religion prepared to embrace Maher's condemnation of faith in general, either.  

As a one time Maher fan who now thinks him toxically partisan, I was both excited and anxious about "Religulous". I haven't seen it, but have caught a chunk of his "down with faith" movie release tour on the talk show circuit.

I can imagine why this Maher-flick on religion might fail to resonate with those of us who crave a more thoughtful debate; as evidenced by Steven's remarks.

I also cringed when I read the line implying that the religious majority's ability to forgive and tolerate their fundamentalist colleagues is a good thing.

I like a sermon on forgiveness. I understand the importance of tolerance to Christian doctrine.

Followers of any faith who embrace those who spew hatred, discrimination, and the other vile side-effects of religious extremism in the name of forgiveness are engaged in a convenient and dangerous form of moral relativism .

Interestingly, some followers of mainstream religion are prepared to use Maher's condemnation of faith. Sometimes it yields an interesting and provocative discussion; and that's good.

Still, Maher's diatribe attacks not only faith as in "organized religion" but the basic idea of "faith"; as in "belief without physical confirmation of the subject of said faith".

No wonder he seems so angry; that must be a difficult and sad worldview to maintain.