Religulous'd

I just had a chance to watch Bill Maher's Religulous, a so-called documentary where he attempts to debunk religion and deduce our need for it as nothing more than a psychological disorder. This concept isn't a new one. I believe Freud was the first (or at least the most prominent) figure to speak of religion as a mental disorder.

Maher goes international in this movie, hitting up places like Amsterdam, the Vatican, Jerusalem, Megiddo, and England, in addition to sites in the U.S. such as Salt Lake City, The Holy Land Experience in Florida, and various other religious institutions throughout the country. He interviews people about their beliefs and asks them questions about their faith (questions about textual authenticity, scriptural literalism, how they know God exists, why religion and violence are so inextricably linked and other faith-based questions). Of course, the man has done his reading, and he rebuts everything that people say with, "but doesn't your faith believe ....." catching people off-guard and unable to defend themselves or their faiths. Some people, when they realize Maher's intent to disprove their beliefs, walk out on the interview.

The movie was funny. It really was. Maher is a funny guy. But did I find it offensive? A tad. Not because he has questions and not because he's a staunch atheist bent on the mass rejection of religion altogether. My biggest annoyance comes from his claim of filming a documentary. Personally, I hardly believe in the objective documentary anymore unless it's by the National Geographic and it's about meerkats and other wildlife. The people he interviews are not the most intelligent people. Of course, it's important to hit up the masses when determining public opinion and these people are the bodies of their respective religions. But really? He goes to a trucker-church, a church for truckers someplace down south and he "interviews" them about their faith. There is so much complexity to religion -that's one of the beauties of its collective. Faith can be simple and it can be ridiculously complex. So he asks these truckers some fairly tough questions, and he's ready with a rebuttal for almost every possible answer. Obviously, these men aren't theologians, so how are they expected to keep up? Maher smashes them to bits, and is obviously very smug because he feels as though he has won the battle. Well, duh.

He does interview some religious leaders however. They, sadly, generally do not fair much better than their layperson counterparts. I don't know whether it's because they're caught off guard or whether they're just dumb, I can't say. I was really disppointed in some of them, especially some of the Jewish and Muslim authorities who are generally supposed to be more scholarly (I'm pointing out the fact that Evangelicals just aren't that academically-minded. I'm not saying that they're dumb. I'm saying that the focus in the Protestant faith is generally not on the academic, it's on church building, ministry and so forth). But anyhow, everybody ends up looking kind of dumb and Maher of course celebrates gleefully.

But Maher has a larger objective/thesis that emerges near the end of the movie. He talks about violence and religion and how they're not just linked, but that religion causes violence. (I have a textbook I could lend him that might state otherwise) His bottom line is that if humanity is to survive, there must be a collective rejection of any form of religion. It's an interesting statement.

I've been learning about what makes a good paper and a good argument, one that would be accepted by academics. You need a counter argument. He does not have that. I've also learned what makes a bad argument. Selective evidence is one. He uses that. He interviews lay people who are not theologically-inclined, people who are well, just not that well informed, "politicians" who are religious observants and nothing more, crazy people (the Joel Osteen types, there's this one minister in the States who believes that he is both the descendent and manifestation of Jesus), those people who run that "God hates fags"church, etc. I have a hard time imagining that some the religious scholars/theologians, who are prominent in my mind, would have a problem answering well some of his questions. And lastly, he's far from objective. He doesn't approach the issue with respect. At every turn, he's making fun of the people and religions he's questioning. If his intention is to make people reject their religions I think it would hardly work. When I watched this, I was pretty infuriated at his lack of objectivity and respect for anything considered sacred for billions of people. One last thing, he really only targetted the big 3: Judaism, Christianity (most of all), and Islam. He talked about some fringe religions such as Scientology and some Marijuana religion but nothing more. He wasn't looking at things holistically.

Okay, enough about some of the flaws of the movie (there are just a few more, but I won't go into them). How does this make me feel? Well, I'm sad. I hate feeling intellectually and ideologically superior to people, but some of these people were not representing their faiths well. At all. They actually looked a little cuckoo. It was mostly those Christians down south. I wish, with all my heart, that people would inform themselves and not be ignorant about what they believe. And if they believe something, back it up - WHY do they believe it? So many times people just said, "I just know it in my heart." Not a good answer. Not to me anyway. I know postmodernism is about the realm of human experience, but sometimes, that just doesn't cut it. BACK IT UP.

Other than the laughs (some of it really is pretty freaking hilarious) I did get something out of this movie. I examined myself a little more which is something I haven't done in a long time. Self reflection and evaluation is so important and people forget about it. I asked myself, why do I believe? Why do I believe it? How do I know what I believe is right? That sort of thing. It's always important, especially when it comes to one's faith because it is what DRIVES a person, it's what gives life MEANING.

So anyway, Religulous = good entertainment (like hilarious), poor journalism (the man's a comedian, and not a religious scholar. I'm offended on that level alone), some flawed thinking, but some good questions that one needs to consider. I recommend it. Despite hating "documentaries" such as Jesus Camp, Religulous, and What Would Jesus Buy because they're just so damn biased, I always recommend them to people. Don't be afraid to look at something that might poke fun of what you believe. It's always a learning step. Honestly, I blame Michael Moore for starting all these politically charged documentaries. I love it but I hate it.

tired and grumpy

pourquoi est-il a pube dans le sink????

also, funny story. i'm trying to shrink one of my tshirts and i planned to google "shrinking cotton shirts" but accidentally dropped the "t" in the "shirts". whoops. teeeeheeeehahahahahaha

recluse

I find that whenever I have school or any type of stress that might bog me down, I become a hermit, a recluse. I don't like seeing people, don't like talking to them, and when I do, it's short, sweet and to the point. I take after my parents. It doesn't help that I'm not that social to begin with, I enjoy being by myself, doing my own thing. So stress, on top of this predisposition to be a hermit, makes me disappear.

But this is no good. This is not how people are supposed to be. It's easy to say, "oh, that's just the way I am, that's how my personality is." That's an excuse, an easy way to neglect responsibilities and neglect friends. I can't tolerate it anymore. I'm starting to see some of my relationships deteriorate because I'm not investing in them. This must stop.

STOP. In the name of love, before you break my heart... love it. there's a song for every occasion.