Bill Maher's "Religulous"

The series "Liken With Care" with Book of Mormon scholar Brant Gardner will conclude on Wednesday. Meanwhile, enjoy some ruminations on a new film by Bill Maher. I note here that I have not yet seen the film, but I have read apx. 25 reviews whose opinions range from praise to disgust, and I've recently read a handful of articles and watched several interviews with Maher himself on the movie. These comments, then, represent an outsider's analysis and not a review of the film proper.

Comedian-turned political pundit Bill Maher’s new film “Religulous” (combining the words “religion” and “ridiculous”) appears to be another product of the so-called “New Atheism” movement. CNN’s Simon Hooper noted this movement is composed of various “thinkers and writers...[who share] a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”¹

Maher and the other spokesmen believe that developments in technology, including weapons of mass destruction, have made humanity so powerful that religion’s basis in faith is likely to destroy the world through irrational conflict. Further, religious belief in general is seen as foolish and out of date compared to the enlightenment of current scientific thought. Maher’s film, then, is designed to entertainingly demonstrate that religion is both dangerous and irrational.

Reviewers have described it as an in-your-face piece of pop culture “that doesn’t pretend to be a serious cultural or scientific exploration of the roots of faith.” With an attitude of “glib condescension” Maher travels the world interviewing various people of faith, excluding all eastern religions. His “main strategy is to coax most of those subjects who are true believers to appear foolish as they offer stumbling, inarticulate responses to his friendly interrogations. The majority of his subjects are easy targets.”²

Another reviewer noted “Instead of doing serious and thoughtful research, instead of presenting us with (admittedly less entertaining) data about the influence of particular religious beliefs or institutions, instead of investigating the good works of people inspired by religion or the benefits of faith-based programs, instead of trying to understand the appeal of religious faith he seeks out the people on the fringes and pretty much makes fun of them.”³

The Salt Lake Tribune provided a synopsis of the film’s brief treatment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Just less than an hour into Religulous, Bill Maher is shown doing his stand-up act, talking about religions that believe in really crazy stuff - even by the standards of the major religions.

Thus begins four minutes of criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Maher then is shown talking in front of the Salt Lake Temple. But not for long, as a couple of burly guys in Mr. Mac suits - labeled Mormon Fuzz - quickly shoo Maher and his camera crew off church property.

The rest of the movie's Mormon segment is Maher's interview with two well-known ex-Mormons: singer Tal Bachman (son of Randy Bachman of Bachman-Turner Overdrive) and former LDS bishop Bill Gardiner, who's now a prominent member of the Ex-Mormon Foundation.

Maher goes over some of the tenets of Mormonism, with mocking illustrations. The mention of temple garments includes a photo of a man and a woman in their magic underwear. Talk of the belief that American Indians are a lost tribe of Judaism brings up a brief clip from Blazing Saddles, of Mel Brooks wearing Indian regalia and muttering in Yiddish.⁴

Given the brief time devoted and the fact that Maher’s two main sources on Mormonism are former members of the Church, Latter-day Saints should not expect a well-rounded treatment of their faith. Why were these two selected? Mormons were mentioned again in the film when Maher interviews an astronomer from the Vatican. When asked why the Vatican would be interested in science the priest says that "Well, I can tell you that we are not here trying to find other planets just so we can get to them and convert everyone-- and beat the Mormons to it." That's one I can definitely have a good laugh about.⁵

Some of Maher's explanations of how the film was created exhibit his less-than-forthright approach. He explained to the Los Angeles Times: "It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it `A Spiritual Journey.' ... At the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they'd be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they'd have to talk to me."⁶

Maher’s film is intended to be a comedy, not a reliable exploration of faith, but rather a polemical and purposefully irreverent method of ridicule geared more to entertain than educate; more commercial product than scholarly endeavor. It sounds the call of the “new atheist” movement toward what its proponents see as a more rational and enlightened worldview, but does so without responsibly or fairly engaging its target. Even if Maher’s position was correct, the brash, confrontational style interferes with the message and will likely resonate most with those already committed to viewing religion as merely silly.

Reviewer Shawn P. Means described the close of the film: “...the laughs are shut off in the final reel, when [Maher] unloads on the violence done in the name of religion (complete with images of 9/11, suicide bombings and George W. Bush's invocations of God) and urges humanity to "grow up or die."⁷ But what does Maher suggest people “grow up” to be? Perhaps the weakest point of the film is its failure to offer any viable replacement for faith. The faithful can certainly join with Maher in abhorring the excesses and evils perpetrated in the name of religion, but in calling the religious to abandon their faith, hope and charity, perhaps all Maher offers in return is the consolation that “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature,” and that “when a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (Alma 30:17-18). If Maher is serious in thinking religion is going to lead to a nuclear disaster or worse in the near future and this film is the best he can do to help prevent it, he's not an extremely responsible or caring person, or he's not that convinced about the impending doom.Otherwise, he could have made efforts to actually reach out to the ones he believes should be feared rather than simply mocking.

FOOTNOTES

[1]
Simon Hooper, “The rise of the 'New Atheists'” CNN Briefingroom, posted November 9, 2006. It should be noted on Comedy Central’s “Daily Show with John Stewart” Maher described himself as agnostic (one who does not know if God exists) rather than atheistic, a position he views as the mirror image of any dogmatic and blind faith-based religion. He does not examine the potential of his own views being dogmatic or “religious.” On this topic, see Louis C. Midgley, “Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote a Naturalistic Humanism: Review of Religion, Femminism, and Freedom of Conscience: A Mormon/Humanist Dialogue by George D. Smith," FARMS Review of Books 7:1 (1995), 229–297. Other participants in the unofficial “New Atheism” are not as shy as Maher in proclaiming there is no god. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens have each recently published books as part of the unofficial New Atheism movement. For more on this movement and on science and religion generally, see the following reviews: Allen R. Buskirk, “Science, Pseudoscience, and Religious Belief (A review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan),” FARMS Review 17:1 (2005), 273-309; Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: God and Mr. Hitchens,” FARMS Review 19:2 (2007), xi-xlvi; David Grandy, “Ideology in the Guise of Science (A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins),” FARMS Review 19:2 (2007), 239-243.

[2]
Stephen Holden, “Believers, Skeptics and a Pool of Sitting Ducks,” New York Times, October 1, 2008.

[3]
Nell Minow, “Religulous,” Beliefnet.com, October 2, 2008.

[4]
Sean P. Means, “Review: Maher takes on religion but sounds like he's preaching to the agnostic choir,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 2, 2008.

[5]
Spoiler for Religulous, by "kevin," Themoviespoiler.com.

[6]
Patrick Goldstein, "Maher documentary jabs at religion," Los Angeles Times, Aug 16, 2008. 

[7]
Ibid.