Are the lies of "Zeitgeist" being repeated in Bill Maher's new movie "Religulous"?

Bill Maher is a comedian I didnt know that LOL
I just thought he was some idiot with a talk show.
LOL

 

I think it is worth watching even if it is drivel (Canada has a brilliant copyright loophole that allows pirating for "personal study", so as a film minor in Uni I ratoianalize it that way ) I'd also agree that it is stright up propaganda (like M. Moore's movies). I strongly disagree that "most poeple" can tell the difference. Look at how M Moore is hailed in some areas of middle class white culture. I can't count on two hands the numbr of times people have used seeing a documentary (any documentary) as a way to become an "expert" on a situation. All documentary filmmaking has clear biases (some aknowledged, some implicit) that dictate the meaning of the film. An Inconvieniant Truth is a good example of a clear bias. Watch something like Paul tomkowicz (from the National Film Board of Canada: http://www.nfb.ca/film/paul_tomkowicz_street_railway_switchman/ ). It's bias is well hidden, but basically it is arguing a place for immigrants in Canada. The French version moved him from Winnipeg to Ottawa for an even more political French-English statement.

My point is this: all documentaries, all movies, all art is arguing something. Whether it is a strong argument or weak argument; highly concious or subtley suggestive--all art is trying to prove a point of some sort and documentary films are no exception. Documentary does not equal pure fact...

That being said, I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would (I was ecpecting a disaster). He was kind enough most of the time, and the film was well put together (a nice mix of interview and commentary). It also was a nice looking film. The only thing I'd say against it was that, like others have said, it is a rehash of the same old tired jokes. An almost identical movie could be made (and get a point "proved" like Maher) by going far North into Canada (or to Newfoundland) and highlighting stereotypes. He also adds soundeffects and obviously silly subtitles to ridicule his participants. As much as I loathe Dick Dawkins, he can at least treat his antithetical participants with dignity, if not respect. Bill Maher basically made a 2 our version of Jay Leno's Jay-Walking.

My favourite part though was the Holy Land Experience. If I didn't have a deep aversion to giving those guys any revenue, I'd be on a plane right now to go and see their "authentic Jerusalem market".

 

I feel like this documentary didn't act to much as to attack a specific religion - but the people who chose to follow it.

Alot of his points are pretty basic, and obviously true. Basically that, religion as a whole (not just Christianity) is doing, and has been doing, more bad for this word than good. This is because of its followers, not the religion itself. Pretty self evident.

 

Unfortunately, as a Christian I think I'd have to agree with that. There's an awful lot to satirize on the contemporary religious scene. There's also been a tendency to be really deferential to it, because hey--its sacred. I think satirists like Maher do a service in lampooning this stuff, the best way to make people realize how absurd it is. Too bad, however, a lot of people will probably come away with a negative attitude toward religion in general, rather than the ridiculous, or should I say "religulous" excesses done in its name. For the sequel, maybe there should be a satire on documantary satirists like Bill Maher and Michael Moore. Maybe we could call it "Maheraculous" (or Mooriculous?).

 

I finally saw it, and yes, quite literally, the movie does repeat the lies of Zeitgeist: Horus' crucifiction and resurrection on the third day, etc. I thought the movie was entertaining and useful in exposing a lot of the nonsense and cant that surrounds religion, except it uses selctive editing to create the impression that it's all nonsense and cant. I'm glad I rented it. One scene in particular I enjoyed was the interview with Francis Collins, a distinguished geneticist who heads up the Genome Project and is an Evangelical Christian. He made a fool of himself, with a little encouragement from Maher, and it makes me all the more aware of how even brilliant people can go a little haywire when they get into religion. He said that Jesus was based on eyewitness accounts, and when challenged by Maher, replied that they were almost eyewitness--only decades off!

The last part of the documentary was a preachy, overly didactic sermonette about how dangerous religion is, how it leads to wars, how it must be eliminated, and how even religious moderates like me are guilty as enablers. We've heard it all before so many, many, many times from Relaxx, FedUp American, Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. Bill Maher isn't exactly an intellectual giant, and when he mounts his soap box, he falls flat. Like Michael Moore, he has an abrasive personality that sometimes gets in the way of his message, which is basically on track. He should have been more embarrassed about the smugly superior, condescending tone he took toward his subjects, who must have noticed they were being laughed at. The contrast between his attitude and Jesus' helped me to remember once again why I'm a Christian. But it stimulated a lively family discussion that went on until 3:00, so I got more than my money's worth from the rental.

 

Glad you saw it, and glad you took the time to respond. I believe you were the first person to answer my primary question (regarding Horus for example) so thanks for that.

Peace love and all that.