Bill Maher ridicules faith in upcoming Religulous movie
For those who haven’t seen this interesting piece of sarcasm masquerading as a documentary coming, Bill Maher has created a documentary named Religulous that will have many religious people up in arms, and many anti-religionists cheering (though some atheists are already recoiling in shame and disgust). From the trailer:
"It worries me that people are running my country that believe in a talking snake."
"Santa Clause can hit every house in the world in one night…of course not…[but] one man hearing everyone murmur to Him at the same time, that I get."
Maher includes clips and interviews with fringe ministers like Robert Tilton and the guy in Florida who thinks he is Jesus come again, which looks a bit like his is constructing a straw man using fringe elements, but he may just be illustrating his point that religion makes people illogical, if not crazy.
Maher is gaining a reputation for being a open critic and mocker of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, ever since he made disparaging remarks about the Pope (which he disingenuously apologized for).
Now, I don’t fault him for having a sense of humor or even ridiculing ridiculous things, but I think his approach and lack of accurate representation of what faith, esp. the Christian faith, is accomplishing in the world (was he in LA after Katrina?) may just add more heat than light. It’s funny how those on the left preach tolerance, but have no bones about ridiculing the beliefs of others.
Now, if they were reasonable, they would abandon their hyper-tolerance, and realize that there is a place for healthy criticism, even moral judgments in the public arena – even of their precious ‘protected groups.’
My guess is that on the scale of really good documentaries, this will fall somewhere between a schlocky hit piece a la Michael Moore, and a more ‘serious’ documentary critical of religion like Jesus Camp. In fact, here’s how I would measure the various documentaries of late:
Keep in mind that what usually gets seen is the fringe element. Certainly some peace-loving Muslim somewhere wrote a post about the narrow mindedness of the person who wrote the post about Islam being unable to live with peace. The problem with any look into a different point of view is that it is exactly that: a look into the paradigm, not an explanation from the paradigm. So, as much as Bill Maher is unable to accurately represent the whole of Xiandom due to his atheism, he can certainly say that what he sees (the total folks that make the news with faith healing, delusions of grandeur, and polygamy) is idiocy.
If Xians — or Muslims, or any other group — want to be represented in a good light, they need to get a representative out there that represents them accurately. For Xians, the calm message of God’s love is lost in the din of sensationalist wrath-preaching fear peddlers; people usually pay more attention to the din than the singular voice of sanity therein.
“It’s funny how those on the left preach tolerance, but have no bones about ridiculing the beleifs of others.”
Just because you believe in something very deeply doesn’t mean that it’s not ridiculous. Talking snakes, for example.
So, as much as Bill Maher is unable to accurately represent the whole of Xiandom due to his atheism, he can certainly say that what he sees (the total folks that make the news with faith healing, delusions of grandeur, and polygamy) is idiocy.
The problem is, he may be using the fringe to represent the majority. His inability to distinguish between the majority (which, when it comes to Islamic terror, I would say could be both peaceful and violent muslims, since the latter, even if a minority, is a significantly large one) and the fringe is a common failing of ideologues without integrity.
Just because you believe in something very deeply doesn’t mean that it’s not ridiculous. Talking snakes, for example.
Of course not. But that’s not the point I am making. Rather, his method is neither entirely honest, nor respectful (as most of, for example, Expelled was). Maher’s criticisms are really just self-righteous incredulity and meanness. I doubt that he would criticize his own perspective using the same sarcastic techniques.
The bottom line is there are people who believe in a talking snake. That’s ridiculous. They will and should be criticized for holding silly beliefs, regardless of how deeply held those beliefs are. You’d mock an adult who believes in Santa in the same way. Such beliefs deserve to be mocked.
I can’t wait to see it.
Me neither, although, I probably will wait for it to come out on DVD. While you are waiting, you should check out Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled ;) Seriously, it was not too bad.
I still haven’t actually seen Inconvenient Truth.
His inability to distinguish between the majority…and the fringe is a common failing of ideologues without integrity.
What an effing hypocrite! You do this every time you open your mouth about gay people. It’s just amazing how you ideologues without integrity can be so blind to your own failings and hubris. When it’s your ox being gored you squeal to high heaven (as we see above), but when it’s those you hate you can do no wrong.
btw: Another nail in the coffin of religious homophobia and seeker’s pseudo-scientific droolings on the subject.
Um, I hate to tell you, but there is no coffin, since science has not clearly determined the origins of homosexuality, although my recent posts show that geneticists seem to think that it can be at most 60% genetic, and more likely, 30%.
My data is real science, published in real journals. As I documented, even the APA has backed away from claiming that homosexuality is genetic.
The article you referenced is interesting, but it’s high on conjecture, low on conclusive evidence.
As to your contention that I highlight fringe elements, you are again mistaken. I quote statistics. Can you document where I use fringe people or groups to represent homosexuality?
Relevant Posts:
Francis Collins: “Homosexuality not genetically hardwired”
The last 1000 research papers on homosexuality – what do they say?
APA shows signs of backing away from biological model of homosexuality
Longitudinal Study Validates Ex-gay Therapy
I’ve documented it before, many times. One more try, taking your Longitudinal STudy link above:
Authors:
Stanton L. Jones: Provost at the evangelical affiliated Wheaton College and author of other books taking a Christian (ie, negative) approach to hx;
Mark A. Yarhouse: Yet another conservative xian interested in turning gays straight.
What is their goal? To use psychology to prove hx a “sin”: From an interview in NARTH,
We (Stan and Mark) have watched for years as the supposed “scientific evidence” has been used in the ethical/moral debates of the various Christian denominations over the divisive topic of homosexuality. The majority of the time, the “evidence” has been used against the traditional moral position that sees homosexual behavior as sin.
Your citation of “1000 research papers” refers back to NARTH again – a conservative xian affiliated organization whose agenda is to convert gays to straight. Hardly a scientifically disinterested source.
Dr. Collins is more interesting. You quote him in your link:
“An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” [emphasis mine]
“Inheritable factors play a role in male hx.” I agree that it’s probably not completely hardwired – what is? Sexuality is far more complex and mysterious. But he does say genetics plays a part, doesn’t he? A “predisposition.” This contradicts your contention.
Your “real journals” and “fringe groups” are documented. The “studies” you cite come from biased sources with a xian ax to grind. You cite them as is they are conclusive – a laughable concept. NARTH is a joke. They pick and choose what they want from xian sources to bolster their ideological jihad against hx. So, please, let’s stop this charade you indulge in that your prejudice has a scientific basis.
“Inheritable factors play a role in male hx.” I agree that it’s probably not completely hardwired – what is? Sexuality is far more complex and mysterious. But he does say genetics plays a part, doesn’t he? A “predisposition.” This contradicts your contention.
Not at all. We find all kinds of abnormalities and diseases rooted in DNA. My contention is that it IS an abnormality that is correctable through therapy (since it may be 80% environmental), as well as drug and gene therapy.
And your rejection of NARTH is only half correct. If it is their pundits reviewing the literature, you may question them. But the literature itself, which they also present as is, you can not dismiss just because THEY brought it to your attention. Which is what you do.
No one has commented on my quantitative scoring of the various documentaries.
My contention is that it IS an abnormality…
And that’s all that it is, your “contention.” In other words, your opinion. I, and the entire scientific establishment, disagree. I’ll take their opinion over your christianist sources any day – especially since you reflect their motivations, and we have all seen just how vicious and hitlerian you are on this topic. It is impossible for xian sources to be objective on this topic.
As to your table: interesting, but still very subjective (as are all such judgments). My favorite documentary is Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” – odd that you don’t review it.