Bill Maher's movie Religulous will be showing theaters soon. It is a frivolous anti-religion movie.
Asked about the reason for making the movie, he states "Religion is a dangerous sham "selling an invisible product" and is a danger to our continued existence on Earth." Silly, silly man. Religion has been around since Adam (or since man began walking upright, if that is your view), and mankind is still around. I have no intention of watching the movie, but I can safely guess that the movie is a straw man argument against religion, i.e., mischaracterize religion and then point a finger and say how silly it is.
8 comments:
He has always been a silly man and one that usually makes no sense but like Jerry Springer people watch him for his shock factor and not his intellecual (sp) comments or opinions.
Ya'll are being too nice on him. He is not just a silly man, he is dispicable. Every time I see him on TV I get sick, and must turn the channel(The same for Bill Clinton). He is creepy and and very disrespectful. I agree with both of you, we should not give him the time of day, and we should definately stay away from his hate mongering movie. He surely is play putting in the hands to Saten!
Bill Maher is a vicious rodent - a snake. He's not worth his weight in bum foder. Kim
Well, I guess I will take the bait.
As you all know by now, I am an atheist. So as you can well imagine, my reaction to Bill Maher is the not the same as yours. I find him insightful, funny, and right most of the time.
I will see the film and let you know whether Alan's analysis makes sense to me. It may well. It may well not.
Films are not the best way to challenge any position. I would rather be challenged by a good book complete with annotations and a good bibliography: no manipulating music, no crowd around you to 'heighten' the experience, just an intellectual one-on-one with the author.
That said, I hasten to add that it is not a bad thing to see and read things that challenge your held beliefs. I saw 'The Passion of the Christ' and did not share the opinions of many of its secular critics. It was Catholic in its approach to be sure, but it made me think. I have watched KBYU and have tried to follow the logic involved with some of its programs. Sometimes they make me consider my positions carefully, but usually not.
Bill Maher is certainly insulting to you if you are a believer. He is a comedian and commentator. If you are not a believer, he is not insulting, he is just saying it as it is. He is absolutist in his approach as are the religious. It is his absolutist approach that upsets you the most I'll bet. It is the same for atheists who have to endure absolutist statements regarding the existence of God.
Religion as a danger to our existence on earth is not an original thought. Although it seems far-fetched, just bare in mind Islam, Ahmedinjadh (sp! and who cares?), suicide bombers, Sunni/Shia hatred, rioting Hindus, and any number of zealots of any religious stripe. Connect these folks to possession of nuclear weapons and you get the idea. Do any of you doubt that the crazy Muslims who flew the planes into the WTC towers would not have loved to possess a nuclear weapon? Do any of you doubt that Bin Laden would not hesitate to blow us and the unbelieving (as regards to Islam) world sky high if he could? If we were still in the stone age, if we were still in 17th and 18th century European wars, if we were still in WWI or WWII, I would agree that such a statement would be silly, but add real nuclear weapons to real mindless religious zealots and I think the possible scenario really, really changes. Not so silly. Is this not what Republicans and Democrats are talking about when they worry about N. Korea and Iran?
Being a religious zealot with a car bomb or a plane to fly into a building is one thing, possession of a nuclear arsenal is quite another. Remember that pure Islam sees government as an extension of the Ummah, the community of Muslims. We underestimate them at our peril! Can you imagine the detonation of a nuke or a dirty nuke in the United States by Muslims? McCain's little Beach Boys ditty
'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran'- nice international statesmanship John - would suddenly resonate at real levels with a lot of Christians.
Let's hope that all of this is highly unlikely, but silly?
No. Certainly no more silly than the religious claim that God will cause the entire world to burn at some point in the future, that there will be a rapture, or a second coming of one of this world's many gods.
I was a bit surprised to hear that you were an atheist. I had always thought you were agnostic. My bad. I sure agree with you about the dangers of radical Islam. However, I doubt they would wipe themselves out in a nuclear holocaust. Their ultimate goal is to rule, not eliminate all of humanity. You don't see leaders of al Qaeda blowing themselves up. They use weak men, women, children, and the mentally handicapped. So humanity would remain, albeit a very bad form of it. At any rate, that's a worst case scenario that I think will not happen.
Religion is not dangerous. It's the crazy power mongers that Saten grabs hold of and encourages them to twist the good in religion to make it bad that is dangerous. If you don't beleive there is a God, then I imagine that you don't beleive their is a Saten. But based on my belief that there is, then you can see that religion isn't the danger, it is the succombing to Saten's tactics that is the danger. Of course, it isn't always Satens fault, as we know the natural man is weak, and falls easily into his grasp when not being obediant to God's protecting commandments. Saten has worked religion hard over many thousands of years. He is clever, and he forsaw long ago how to use it as a tool against humanity itself. Radical Islam is an example of how he slowly turned good and peaceful religeous views into ugly hatred. I don't blame religion, I blame Saten for making religion poisonous venom when the wrong people are in power.
If you read up on Islam, you will see that it is an outgrowth of nomadic Arab culture, that indeed much of it was not peaceful at the beginning in as much as nomadic Arabic tribal culture was not so very peaceful.
Our leaders constantly state that it is religion of peace. They do that to placate Islam itself and Muslims here in this country. Islam is troubling, radical or not.
May I recommend a great book that is NOT anti-Islam.
It is simply called Islam, but Karen Armstrong.
If I were not an atheist, I would indeed be able to follow Teresa's logic. But I am, so it is just not possible for me to regard Satan as the cause of anything at all. I do not believe for an instant that he exists.
I cannot speak for Maher. But I believe that religion does a wonderful job uniting those under a particular cult's flag, but a very terrible job of uniting various religions and therefore humanity as a whole. From my point of view, it is more of a divider of humanity than a uniter.
But I should add that I am delighted to live in a country that fully allows any worship of any god as well as the disbelief in any god whatever.
I think that a discussion regarding the separation of religion and government (church and state) is a great one for us to have at some point. Maybe after the elections?
I figure we have a lot on our blog plates right now.
Post a Comment