I made an outline for a non-fiction book called "Religiosity" a few years ago. In fact, I'll go dig that up and link to it. My approach was quite different from Bill Maher's documentary "Religulous" (a made up term, right Bro Bob?) Maher's mocking tone almost kept me from watching. Humor is one thing, but this "documentary" (used loosely) was done in the tradition of Borat's Culture Learnings; both use ambush and deceptive interview techniques that are truly beneath Maher. I felt sorry for some of the people duped into getting on camera -- although Maher would tell me, "I simply asked if they wanted to be on my documentary about religion. If these people are egomaniacs, that's their problem." I can hear him. And, that's true. Politicians, preachers, and all the pontificating Jesus Freaks -- they just tangled with a tiger. I guess that's their problem.
I actually don't mind him body slamming a "brilliant scientist", or greedy, gold-wearing televangelist but there was something pathetic about tackling truckers and the unsuspecting Puerto Rican congregation. Like slamming an ant with a hammer. Hollywood Holy Land? That one deserved a good raking. And, his final commentary, much like his closing remarks each week on his HBO show, was poignant. I loved the Vatican segments and the liberal priest who went toe-to-toe with Bill. Woot!
Notice, there was no mocking of Taoism, Buddhism or meditation. Perhaps because we don't have such silly, hypocritical non-sense. It's hard to make fun of calm introspection and methods of seeking peace. Much easier to mock gay Gladiators for God, or Jews for Jesus. But, will it change anyone's beliefs? Probably not. Those deeply entrenched in indefensible bizarre beliefs only get madder when someone mocks them. I know -- when I used to smoke, nagging did not help. Alcoholics can not be mocked out of drinking, and UFOlogists will always have Roswell!
My final word: When you personify God, you're in a dicey realm. I wanted to tell Maher, look, God is not jealous -- just misunderstood. Idolatry is the worship of false gods. Perhaps everyone should ponder that.
2 comments:
I haven't seen the movie. I have no intention of seeing it. I'm just not very interested. I've seen enough of Maher to have a pretty good idea of where it would take such a subject. He's a skilled entertainer and I have no doubt that he'd be able to compile an effective movie to pursue an argument, no matter how shallow the argument. It's not my religiosity - or religulousness if you prefer - that prejudices me (I'm not sure how much, if any, I have of those attributes anyway), but rather that there are atheists out there who are much more interesting if I cared to get into it.
Aside from the comments regarding specific scenes I haven't seen - but which I can accept at face value, being familiar with Maher's approach to subjects - I can agree with most everything you say here. I don't agree that Maher's approach is beneath him - I think it's right at his level. I suspect he truly believes that an airplane he was on would not go down - or conversely, that he wouldn't be on an airplane that was going to go down - because of his diet. Yes, he's said so. He's a head tripper and a narcissist. So, yes, I can well believe that he figures there can't be a God because there are a bunch of fruit cake Christians running around.
I also don't agree with your comment about Buddhists or Taoists or meditators (nor even about Hinduists, which you didn't mention). We look at such people at a great distance and through rose coloured glasses and we don't tend to think of the people who engage in madness in such countries as being representative of their religions. A lot of Asians convert to Christianity because they look at the mystics and the religious orders and they study the religion itself and a lot of things are very attractive to them. They didn't go to schools taught by Christian Brothers in Ireland in the 50's or hang around all those evangelical types in the USA. And those Christians, just like our own Buddhists, tend to take their chosen beliefs very seriously and act like human beings. I hope it's obvious that I'm not talking about tribes and such who were converted by missionaries through the centuries.
I completely agree with the point, as I inferred it, that you indirectly made about the religious and religion itself. That is, that by pointing out the hypocrisies and stupidities and other such flaws in the religious that one has somehow pointed out the invalidity of the religion. That's blatantly absurd. To do that is equivalent to studying the thinking and behaviour of neo-cons and deriving that therefore the founding fathers were full of shit.
To hear most Christians grumble about their rights, what they deserve, fairness and unfairness, one would have to conclude that if they heard the parable of the vineyard they would reckon Jesus Christ was all wet too. And I guess Maher would go along with them.
You didn't mention Judaism, so I'm left without knowing if Maher tackled Jews in his film also. I suspect not. I don't think he would have found the material he wanted.
Bill Hicks did a much better satire of Judeo-Christian belief in 5 minutes.
I did briefly mention the Jews for Jesus, but there were several scenes involving Jewish tenets and even some tense moments at Temple Mount. He opened and closed at Megiddo (in Israel.) As for Hindu, Maher didn't get into it and neither do I since I'm not one. Hindu is actually just an ancient word for Indian and not necessarily a religion. I am, however an adherent of Buddhism, Taosim, and a meditator -- which is why I noticed he did not mock those. Everyone else in America has mocked Eastern spirituality for so many years, perhaps he felt that was passe.
I agree that Maher is arrogant and quit watching his HBO series at one point over his disrespectful diatribe. Like a car wreck, I could not avert my eyes from Religulous. There's much criticism to give over it -- why I especially asked those who have seen it to comment. But, I also understand your disdain for Maher in general.
Post a Comment