Bill Maher still hates your religion

Bill Maher just won't go away. His documentary, "Religulous," grossed nearly $1 million over the weekend, putting it over the $10-million mark in its fourth week in theaters. Granted, that's still about $68 million less than "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" has made, but it's a pretty impressive performance for a documentary. In fact, at $10.6 million, the movie is now in the all-time box office Top 10 for documentaries. Lionsgate execs say "Religulous" isn't just a hit among the nonbelieving, non-"true American" crowd. They say the doc has been putting fannies in the seats in every state in the country. Most of its top performing theaters have been in New York and L.A., but two of the film's Top 20 theaters were in Denver and one was the Broadway Center Six in (gasp!) Salt Lake City.

Since I'm still getting comments from my last Maher interview, I decided to check in with him again, just to see if success had softened his loathing for any and all religion. I think its fair to say the answer is--no, no way, not a chance. You might say Maher has a gift for the wicked jab. So far Maher has been getting mostly kudos for the film, so I thought I'd try to rattle him by raising some of the complaints registered by the Weekly Standard's critic John Podhoretz, who grouched that Maher repeatedly made fun of obese people in the film. The comic's response: "What did you expect? We did the film in America and it's a fat country. I think Podhoretz is fat and he's just especially sensitive to it."

OK. What about Podhoretz's claim that he's never seen anyone conduct himself as rudely on camera ("or in real life") as Maher. Podhoretz wrote that Maher's method in "Religulous'" is "to interview people who are far poorer, far less sophisticated and vastly better mannered than he, and as he does so, to laugh at them, tell them that their deepest beliefs are the sort of nonsense he gave up when he was 11 years old, and then press ahead with another question intended only to expose their idiocy."

Maher's response? "That's ridiculous. Even the people who didn't want to like this movie say how genteel I was. They were expecting me to be snotty and rude and I was nothing of the kind. I don't know what movie Podhoretz saw, but it clearly wasn't mine. To say that I only pick on the weak-minded is totally bogus. I interviewed a U.S. senator--is he poorer or more unsophisticated than me? What about the Vatican astronomer I interviewed? Is he less intellectual than me? Please!"

Podhoretz also complained that the only rabbi Maher interviewed was an anti-Zionist nut. Wasn't that unfair, I asked.

Maher's response: "We don't present him as representing the entire Jewish religion. It was actually difficult, ironically, to find a Jewish guy who was funny. Because it's not fear based, their religion is a harder target for ridicule. The Jews just don't believe a lot of the crazy things I find so dangerous in Christianity and Islam. They don't look forward to Armageddon, like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush and all the other end-timers do. It's one reason I find them so dangerous. It makes me nervous that people are convinced that Jesus is going to fix all of mankind's problems when he comes back. I mean, that can't have a positive effect on our ability to come up with practical solutions if our political leadership believes that everything is coming to an end soon anyway."

To be honest, Maher wasn't any easier on me when I volunteered my own criticism of the movie. Is it really possible that he doesn't find anything positive about religion at all? 

My biggest complaint about his philosophical point--that all religion is dangerous and deluded--remains this: Religion has been in the forefront of a host of social-issue movements, starting with the civil rights movement, whose moral leadership came not from politicians but from religious figures like Rev. Martin Luther King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Jesse Jackson and many others. Much of the leadership in today's fight for the rights of illegal immigrants has come from the Catholic church. Hasn't religion, in fact, been in the forefront of many social struggles?

If it's any consolation to Podhoretz, Maher was just as dismissive of my arguments. "The civil rights revolution would have come about anyway, whether the religious leaders had been in the forefront or not," he says. "Where was religion in 1876 when Reconstruction came to an end and the dream of freedom for African Americans in the South came to an end? It's a pretty tenuous argument. You certainly couldn't say that religionists were on the right side of social causes during the Crusades, or in countries beset by religiously maddened suicide bombers or in Iraq, when it was torn apart by different religious sects.

"Religion never stopped any of the white racists who ruled for generations in the South. In fact, people use religion to justify whatever they want it to. White people were always citing the Bible as their justification for slavery, saying the Bible didn't preach against slavery, simply against how to treat your slaves. If you want to defend the Bible, go ahead, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no one who can defend this stuff and come out with right on his side."

I guess you could say that if I was trying to get Maher to admit there were two sides to this argument, ahem--I seem to failed.

Photo of Bill Maher by Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Right of Center]

I have not seen the movie. I have seen his show, and read enough of his commentary to form an informed opinion. I do think BM (interesting initials) is a faith bigot. It is interesting to me that he and his followers exhibit the behavior (bigotry) that they are so emphatic detest in Christians. There are hundreds of examples of leaders that are in it for their own gains. There are tens of thousands that are selfless. Should the bad leaders be exposed; absolutely! But you cannot group them all together. I leave you with the definition of bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. (Webster dictionary) Opps there is one of those Christians again.

[Curtis Tanner]

It's OK that Bill made this movie. He exposed his own irrational, mean spirited bias and made himsef even less relevent to society. After all, how much value to society is a person who greatest and perhaps only talent is to mock?

[Christian Toto]

A true ideologue, and Maher is one, can't be reasoned with. It's a shame, because he's smart enough to know better ... or should be.

[Veneda]

"Because it's not fear based, their religion is a harder target for ridicule. The Jews just don't believe a lot of the crazy things I find so dangerous in Christianity and Islam. "

Comon, Bill Maher, have you read the Old Testament? Fear of God is in the core of faith of Jewish people.

Believing that the Jews are chosen people isn't it crazy enough for you? Probably not, you may be belive it yourself. Who knows what is your agenda. You have chosen to attack anti-Zionist but not Zionist. Are the Zrionist not nut enough for you?

[Jeremy Bolton]

I saw "Religulous" last week and there was spontaneous applause at the end of the film. It really does connect with audiences in the US, it seems.

I'm Australian, from a country that is predominately irreligious. The most recent census done in 2006 found that 19% of Australians claim no religion whatsoever, with the majority of those who do ally themselves with a religion (Catholicism being the largest) actually don't attend church services on a regular basis. In Australia, the religion or non-religion of politicians is a non-issue. In fact, I would go so far to say that you assume someone you meet is a non-believer until proven otherwise. So, going from a country like that to living in the US, one of the first differences I noticed was the preponderance of religion here -- churches, synagogues, advertisements, people wearing religious symbols, and so on -- and yet, despite all that, I don't think of America as a religious country.

I do agree with Maher's overarching point in the film and in his comedy, that most people in America really don't believe in God or have strong feelings. They go along with it because they were brought up this way, or it's expected. So all Maher is saying, I feel, is: You don't have to feel bad by saying no. You're just as moral and decent a human being if you don't claim a supernatural father figure as those who do. Simple as that. Being agnostic isn't a bad thing.

And for that, I don't know how anyone can disagree with Maher and his film. It's a perfectly rational point of view to say "I don't know if there's a God or not and because of that, I can't legislate or conduct my life based on knowledge which is unattainable." Seems like perfect sense to me.

I'm glad "Religulous" was made because it'll be here for years to come, waiting for those latent non-believers to rent it on DVD or catch it on TV one day and see the sense in Maher's arguments.

[Thai Nguyen]

Right on, Jeremy!

Some smart guy once said that religion is a great source of strength. But it when it comes to govern a country, go to war, handling the Katrina disaster, there are other preferable traits to pick from. For instance: intelligence, reasoning, surrounding yourself with smart people before you invade another country and many other non-churchy attributes.

Haven't seen the movie yet but will soon.

[Laurie Ann]

I'll pray for ya man!

[sojourner]

I also saw Religious yesterday, and found Jeremy Bolton's posting one of the most intelligent and fair minded essays I've read in a long time. I consider myself a recovering fundamentalist. When I look back on my life - articles and issues of faith were presented as indisputable facts and anyone who didn't accept the core tenants were not to be trusted and were going to hell. While I didn't want that, my own intelligence and common sense couldn't reconcile the two resulting in an internal conflict from a very early age. What's wrong with me??? As I grew up, I met very few authentic individuals of faith and a what seemed like a whole world of posers - look good, talk good and go about your life unencumbered by the sacrificial message of Christ.
The bible says, that faith is a gift - some receive it, others don't. No matter how hard you try, if it ain't in the cards, there is no point in trying to earn a gift. Does that mean that you can not be a considerate, compassionate, sensitive, unselfish human striving love one another? I don't think so. Any belief system that has Ghandi burning in hell is one that I choose not to embrace.
I came away from the movie with a great appreciation for the objectives of Bill Maher. From a humanly intellectual perspective, the tenants of Christianity as practiced in the US do not hold up under rational examination. The same beliefs as articles of faith are issues to be answered by each individual. Where it gets sticky is when beliefs are politically imposed in a society, we fare no better than the theocracies we are fighting in Afghanistan et.gov.

[Ken Davey]

Don't gasp about Salt Lake City as a center for progressive thought. Before I move to Utah a little more than two decades ago I also accepted the stereotype of Utahns as deeply conservative, and, statewide, they are. But SLC, along with Moab, Price, and Park City, are islands of of strong progressive politics (arts in SLC and Park City, environment in Moab, workers rights in Price). Remember, one of the most progressive mayors in the nation was from SLC, Rocky Anderson, and when he stepped down another strong progressive, Ralph Becker, took his place. Salt Lake City embracing a movie that (accurately or not) decries religious intolerance? No surprise, no surprise at all.

[deusXmchna]

Maher: " To say that I only pick on the weak-minded is totally bogus. I interviewed a U.S. senator--is he poorer or more unsophisticated than me?"

Picking on politicians. The poor guys never had a chance ;)