Religulous

This weekend Dan and I visited our local "alternative" movie theater to see the documentary by Bill Maher titled "Religulous." The title in and of itself is fairly revealing, it is a documentary about how ridiculous religion and religious people can be. Maher talks to Christians, Muslims, Jew, and a guy who runs the church of pot. He travels all over the world to interview people; he spends time in Israel, and he visits a theme park titled Holy Land, in Florida. Over-all, I really enjoyed the film, but there were a couple of issues that I wanted to take note of.

In the beginning of the film Maher interviews a group of truck drivers at a truck stop chapel, and he asks them if they think the Bible is the word of God. He states that his belief is that the Bible is the word of man, and by man, he means men. Literally, as in people who have a penis. At this point in the film I was thinking to myself "right on Bill!" The bible was written by people with a penis, and I think this is oftentimes overlooked. Where do women fit in? They had no hand in writing or translating the text, so is it surprising that they are given very little power through the channels of Christianity? I think not. But here comes my beef with Bill - after making such an astute point about the patriarchal control over the bible, he proceeds to film his entire documentary without interviewieng very many women. Sure, there were a few he interviewed at Holy Land, and he talked to one female reporter in Amsterdam, but that was it. He didn't talk to any female pastors or religious leaders of any sort. I find this intersting - some might argue this is because there are very few female religious leaders. To these people I answer, bull shit. I happen to know not one, but two. And if an Atheist from a Red State knows two female church leaders, I am fairly certain that Maher's legions of assistants could have found some to be interviewed.

My other source of dissapointment with the film was a much more personal idea. One of the things I am most interested in is the idea that many Christians have about the end of days. Many of them (in my understanding) believe that it will be preceeded by global and economic turmoil, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, etc. Many of these same people also believe that Global Warming is a hoax, and that the government need not impose any regulations to safegaurd the environment. (Cough, Bush, Cough.) So either these people think that destroying the planet is OK, because this is what God wanted - or they believe that it is not humans destroying the planet but God. Either way, I just can't follow the logic. After the past eight years of radical right wing rule we have done more damage to the earth than I ever thought possible - and these people merely believe it is a sign of the coming End of Days. And they are happy about it!!! Becuase that means they can be with Jesus.

So, back to my dissapointment. Maher touches on this concept, but fairly briefly. I would have liked a much more in depth analysis - perhaps looking into Bush's environmental policy as funded by the Christian voting block.

But enough with what I didn't like about the film. Onto what I really liked . . . it was freaking hilarious!! Maher does a great job of finding interesting people with legitimately crazy shit to say. I also really enjoyed his comments about the need for atheists to unite as a voting block. He makes an excellent point - that the number of atheist in our country is nearly 15 times the size of the NRA. Yet the NRA pulls a lot of political pull in Congress, and with our electoral candidates. He speaks of the need for all atheists to speak up about their beliefs, and make atheism more socially acceptable. Until we are a visible minority, our political needs will never be met.

I think this is a very interesting concept. I am, for the most part, very open about my atheism. I don't think it is anything to be ashamed of or should need to hide. But I am very aware of how people will generally react when I tell them I don't believe in God. There are usually two types of people. The first will look at me in horror, as they attempt to comprehend what I am saying to them. These are generally the people who cannot understand how a person can be both moral and athiest. Immediately they will begin trying to engage me in an argument about how I am wrong and that I must really, deep down, be a Christian. Just a little bit? The other group of people won't engage me, they will instead assume that they have some sort of moral high ground and they will decide that I am an inherently flawed person for whom they should have no respect. These are my favorite types of people! There are some people who are understanding and accepting, but they are generally few and far between. So, I understand Bill's call to action that all atheists must become more vocal if we ever want to see changes made in our favor. On the other hand, I understand the hestitancy that many people feel. Atheism is not accepted by the vast majority of Americans, and I don't see that changing in the near future.

So, I highly reccomend that you see the film. If only because there is a great scene in which the leader of the pot church lights his hair on fire! I found the film to be very thought provoking, and these are concepts that I will be chewing on for the next couple of days.