Post-Game Thoughts About Religulous

Some facts about myself that should precede this here entry: my entire academic career was spent moving on-up through a Catholic school system, from Pre-K all the way through graduation day of college. Raised Catholic at home. Attended church every Sunday afternoon for the first 15 or so years of my life. Celebrate all of the major Catholic holidays yearly. Christmas, Easter. The works.



I say all of this to simply illustrate the sense of hypocrisy I'm feeling at the moment, after having seen Bill Maher's provocative comical-yet-scarily-true documentary Religulous. Why the hypocrisy? Because, well, I agree with everything Maher says, questions, and proposes in the film, and I know that I've held these feelings mostly inside for the last 10 or so years. The reasons being, my extended family and some friends strongly believe in Catholicism, so I withheld my personal doubts out of both respect and a reluctance to spark heated debates of which I wouldn't have felt comfortable engaging in. Until now. Using this Religulous flick as a powerful piece of defensive evidence.

Of course, this film is basically preaching to its already-doubtful choir, and is rather one-sided in its approach. Pretty much, Maher arranges interviews with religious heads of all types, and politicians with strong religion-based stances, and other spiritually-minded talking heads. And then, once sitting down with them, those unaware of Maher's brand of controversial humor are sucker-punched by his straightforward, dry-humor-filled questionining of their faith and beliefs. Which he wisely and effectively backs up using facts and quick knowledge-spitting and logical questions.

Which is to say, this isn't a film that strongly-religious folks will particuarly enjoy, or will watch and feel compelled to change their views and beliefs. But if you feel the way Maher feels, which I certainly do myself, its an eye-opening and entertaining piece of piss-off-the-masses art. And, at the least, should be seen by everybody, if not for any other reason than igniting debate and discussion on the mostly-overlooked, or better put "mostly-avoided," topic of religion. As Maher himself said in an interview recently, religion has forever been the "huge elephant in the room." A subject that is always on people's mind, but is taboo in terms of open back-and-forth banter between friends and/or associates.

And one thing this film makes abundantly clear is this: way-too-many of those who consider themselves to be "devout followers" of their respective religions really know jack-shit about the teachings and "facts." They can't cite specific Bible examples, and consistently get the facts wrong. Interesting, to say the least.

But Religulous has opened the flood gates, so to speak. At least in my thought-patterned rivers and lakes. Maybe it's a result of having religious beliefs jammed down my throat since I was a little kid, but I've long questioned the matter. Like, how can God tell us that he loves everybody in one breath, but then condemn gay people in his next? Or, if one of the Beautitudes says "Blessed are the meek," then why do churches have money-collections during mass, making those who can't contribute much feel guilty after ignoring the basket as those seated alongside them donate bills? Why not just leave the basket in an adjacent room for those who want to contribute to drop in dollars at their own discretion?

As far as the "gay people" sentiment, Maher raises it in the film to effective measure, but some of the other points he makes here are what really opened my eyes a bit, presenting notions that for whatever reason I'd neglected to ponder ever before. Such as....why do Catholics adhere to the Ten Commandments when the commandments are simply out-of-date laws erected in the Bronze Age, totally missing out on such modern0-day ills as child abuse, and rape? Why do Catholics follow such a tired and out-of-touch law system?....and another: if Muslims believe in the freedom of speech, then why do they attack and condemn those who speak freely against their beliefs? Hypocritical, huh? Larry Charles, the film's director (same brilliant dude who directed Borat, as well as maintains heavy influence over Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Maher then discuss a late filmmaker named Theo Van Gogh, who made an anti-Muslim short film called The Submission, only to then be murdered by Muslims after its release. Pretty shocking shit.

Religulous may be seen in the public eye as a biased attack on Catholicism, but what I really appreciated about the film is that it roasts all religions---Islamic, Jewish, Mormons, Catholics, etc. Maher has a broader agenda in mind, which is to basically call-out religion as a whole idea, a widespread concept. And, no matter which your heart believes in and your faith resides in, he feels that they're all based around endless made-up fairy tales. The Bible, as he sees it, is a collection of fictional stories, designed to give readers hope while existing without any actual proof of being legit news-reporting, or firsthand accounting.

And frankly, I agree with him on this. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that a talking snake did Adam and Eve dirty? A talking snake? Or that Jonah lived for three days inside a "giant fish," or what we see as a whale now? These are tales that would, if not printed in the Bible, fit perfectly within children's lieterature, or celebrated folklore. I have as big an imagination as anyone, but even i can't fully believe that these things actually happened.

And neither Maher nor myself question the importance of faith, and how powerful believing in something can be for a person. Like, many people have used their faith to carry them through tragedies, and tough times, and in this sense, faith is wholly important. But so many people actually think that these religious tales really went down, and so passionately believing in such yarns sort of defies intelligence, really.

But, just watch the people who inhabit the Jerusalem Experience "amusement park" that Maher visits in the flick. It's basically a giant historical re-enactment park, complete with a Catholic-souvenir-stuffed gift shop, and a live-action reprisal of the Crucifixion. Maher interviews the dude who considers himself to be Jesus as the park, right after his cell phone rings, of course. The whole park just feels so commercialized, and phony, and fugazi. Like, is this what The Bible's Jesus really would've wanted? A theme park where his teachings and likeness are basically pimped out for consumer needs? Yet, the people who run this place really consider themselves to be powerful, meaningful, Lord-serving followers. Really, though?



Religulous offers several intriguing exhibits as to why these stories are "clearly" fiction. Not going to list them all here, but here's one highlight: the Hindu god Krishna, the Egyptian god Horus, and the Iranian figure Mithra all share the same biographical stats as Jesus (born on December 25th; died and was resurrected, etc), and they all--or at least Krishna, I can't recall about the other two--date further back than Jesus does. Which begs the question: couldn't the authors of the New Testament have just read the stories of Krishna and/or Mithra and nipped-and-tucked narratively to conjur up Jesus' bio? It's worth examining now, I feel.

Another moment that rang bells in my head, for whatever reason....while chatting with a doctor, Maher and the doc bring up an interesting point---if one of the key elements to diagnosing somebody as "crazy" is when the person hears voices in their head, then why is it so touchy to consider those who "hear God's voice" as crazy, too? Maher consider religion a "neurological disorder," so such a feeling makes sense for his sensibilties. But it definitely has me thinking...

In the end, though, this is still a comedy. Charles slickly mixes in archival film clips to punctuate jokes and "laugh here" moments, a tactic that at times feels a bit cheap but mostly works. My favorite....after one God-fearing loon says somethigng that totally defies logic yet is meant to justify his religious beliefs (I can't recall what he says exactly, sadly), Charles cuts quickly to some old movie where Jesus gets slapped in the face. Sort of a Homer Simpson-esque "Dohh!" touch.

Just like he does on his great HBO show, Real Time with Bill Maher, our host concludes the film with one his "closing thought" testimonials. Here, in the end-game tirade heard in the film, he really served me some tantalizing food-for-thought. Its a speech-of-sorts centered on war, and how religion is largely responsible for it. It's a really "oh shit, wow" lesson, at least so to me....basically, if the Bible and relgions' beliefs speak of "the end of days" coming, and how God will resurface after our world is ended in some sort of fire-and-brimstone apocalypse, than why would our societies even bother trying to better our world? When the feeling is that, in order for believers to reach their true salvation and to meet their Lord and "savior," this world as we know it must perish.

Therefore, religion breeds war, or ar least does absolutely nothing to stop death and destruction. In a way, talks of a mandatory "end of days" promotes death and destruction, doesn't it? People pray to God, but hear no tangible concrete voice back, so this allows living/breathing/self-serving people to add in their own vocal chord-powers. People such as evangelists, or tyrants, or politicians, or cult leaders. Think about it.



Though, for the sake of fair and double-sided discussion, it must be noted that Maher really only talks to extreme examples of religious believers. Maybe one or two "normal" followers, here and there, spectators in crowds. But damn near all of his interview subjects are people who go to extreme lengths for their faith, which makes the susceptible to such ridicule and scrutiny...Again, Maher isn't necessarily fighting a fair battle here. But if you tend to side with him, as I do, it's easy to get swept in his rallying-cries.

Again, I'm not attacking anybody who strongly believes in their respective religion. I'm just saying...I've long doubted the ideals of mine, and I'll continue to do so for years to come. I'm not totally breaking free from mine, but I'll now take it with large grains of salt. When it comes time to marry, or raise my children, I'll surely follow Catholic practices, still.

Does this make me the ultimate liar, or hyporcrite? Maybe so. But then, I'm a walking contradiction anyway. So why stop now???

One to grow on.