Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > Faith > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS


Published - Saturday, October 11, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (25 comment(s))

Bill Maher hopes to get people thinking with anti-religion film


.
ORLANDO, Fla. — Never let it be said that Bill Maher ran away from a fight. The comic and cultural critic is famous for questioning and ridiculing America’s sacred cows. With his new film, “Religulous,” he’s taking his shot at the biggest sacred cow of all: religion. And he fully expects to take hits for a documentary that mocks and attacks religion for what Maher sees as its dangerous excesses and its fundamental absurdity.

“To me, it’s the last taboo,” he says. “I don’t like it when anybody says ‘You can’t talk about this.’ It makes me want to talk about it.”
His “talking about it” has drawn fire from, among others, The Jewish Journal, which complains that it “casts a negative pall over all religion.” And Judaism gets off lightly in the movie.

“We were in Jerusalem for a week, the funny hat capital of the world,” Maher jokes. “Everybody in that city has a funny hat, because they’re all part of this sect or that one ... But really, the Jews are not warlike. They’re not trying to spread their religion, like the Christians and the Muslims. The religion is not based on fear, that you’re going to get poked in the (bottom) by the devil if you don’t do this.”

Some of the people interviewed for the film aren’t crazy about Maher’s methods. John Westcott, director of the “gays can change” Exchange Ministries of Winter Park, Fla., said he didn’t realize Maher would be doing the interview until the comic came in “guns blazing,” didn’t realize it was for a movie “until my phone started ringing, last week.” He has been a bit anxious about the film, he says. But Westcott also says that “God’s going to use it to His purpose, and hopefully, people who see it will find us and know that we’re here.”

We reached Maher, 52, by phone in New York.

Q: In the film, you seemed quite charmed with Jesus at The Holy Land Experience.

A: I like Jesus a lot. The REAL one. And the Jesus at (The Holy Land Experience) was a nice guy. I’m not crazy about all the people who say they work for Jesus, who talk in his name. But the message of Jesus is as fantastic as it’s ever been.

You know, most of the people that we met in our travels making this movie were nice people.

We came to like them. And that’s OK, because you can disagree with people and wish they thought differently and still like them.

The fact of the matter is, when we’ve shown this movie to preview audiences, doing a Q&A afterward, the first question I ask the audience is ‘How many people here are religious?’ Most of them applaud. These are the people who’ve just given your movie, which is bashing religion, a standing ovation. That says something interesting about where we are as Americans.

Q: Religion really is, as you point out, a taboo subject. What possessed you to take it on?

A: As a comedian, I just realized that here was a pot of gold in the middle of the room. When you’re talking about people who believe in ‘magic underwear,’ for instance, as the Mormons do, I mean, come on! If you can’t make some comic hay out of that, hang it up. Any of the myths, the silly things that people believe that we only accept because we’re used to them, are great comic material.

We thought, ‘If we can just get people to stand back and see them all as if it were the first time, it would be kind of funny.’ And it was.

The Scientologists and the Mormons I think should merge. Call it ‘Mormontology.’ But they’re just funnier because they’re newer ... If you didn’t know the first thing about Christianity and somebody told you, for the first time, this story that God is all powerful, better than us in any way. But he has a son. He’s a single parent. And he tells the son, ‘Son, you’re going on a suicide mission down to Earth. Don’t worry. They can’t kill you because you’re really me. So here’s the plan. I, God the Father, wink wink, I’ll come down to Earth first. Easy because we’re two people. God the Father, God the son.. And I’ll see if I can’t find a Palestinian woman to impregnate so she can give birth to you. I mean ME. Oh, you know what I mean!’ The silliest story I’ve ever heard.

Q: The movie’s a jeremiad about religion and you become a kind of Jeremiah yourself.

A: Crazy, isn’t it? It’s just too much fun to dress up as a crazy street-corner preacher, talking Scientology ... Nobody knew all those tenets of Scientology. I don’t know how many people have gone through the whole religion and seen what it is they believe. It is so laugh-out-loud funny.

And the idea that when you’re watching Tom Cruise or John Travolta, you realize when they get home behind closed doors they believe in the galactic warrior Xenu, who 12 trillion years ago came to Earth and planted bodies around volcanoes and blew them up with atom bombs, this whole incredibly nonsensical story.

And this is the central conceit of our whole movie. Otherwise rational people wall off a part of their mind and convince themselves to believe something that is so positively, obviously ridiculous.

Q: The movie was supposed to come out last summer, but you held it. Because of the election?

A: You know, Sarah Palin, I have to say, probably not good for the country. But if she gets people thinking about how dangerous religion is in our political leaders, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Because this is a person who has gone to many different churches ... At every one of these churches they take the Bible literally ... She believes Jesus gave pony rides on dinosaurs because the world is only 5,000 years old. And she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency. She’s a person who is rooting for the end of the world! They believe in this end-times stuff, think it’s gonna happen in her lifetime. And that it’s a good thing. They call it ‘The Rapture.’ That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? But it’s the end of the world.

People should go see this movie if for no other reason than to be alarmed that people who think like her, who want the world to end, want to be in charge of seeing to it that the world doesn’t come to an end.
.



 Advertisement 
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:02 PM:

" Well sure it's 'obvious' and there is no need to disparage them for not knowing what they didn't know eh. And AGAIN -- of course I do NOT argue for a LITERAL interpretation of religions but for a metaphoric mythological one which indeed has great value for many people. It IS a 'cold world' out there (surface wise at least) and religions aid in understanding human values and aspirations. ALL mythologies attract as Joseph Campbell realized and ought to be treated with some respect. NO mythology is 'better' than another I say but they have legitimate purposes that 'speak' to human beings. Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Marx also expressed a 'human' dimension for science and that's why they remain 'beacons'... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:56 PM:

" For a good break down of some of the major problems with abiogenesis see this site:

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

If you check out the site, you'll see they reference their statements to other science sources, and not the Bible. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:52 PM:

" Obviously BS uses selective reading.

Here's another quote from another site...

"One of the biggest hurdles faced by Origins of life research is the fact that modern life at some point incorporated the dichotomy between replicating molecules and the effector molecules they code for. Life (the objection goes) would have had to develop two distinct but wholly dependent systems simultaneously. It is safe to say that this scenario is so unlikely that it is effectively impossible......There are enormous gaps in all Origin of Life models."

Your assumption that science has shown that life can come from non-life is far from proven. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 11:05 PM:

" Bates,

Life's not that hard, even your own links support abiogenesis--read them!

This can be synthesized artificially or via nature, no god required:

http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/3/518?view=long&pmid=15353568

"A minimal metabolism. The minimal cell can obtain its more basic components from the environment: glucose, fatty acids, amino acids, adenine, guanine, uracil, and coenzyme precursors (nicotinamide, riboflavin, folate, pantothenate, and pyridoxal). Each box includes the metabolic transformations classified in major groups of pathways: glycolysis, phospholipid biosynthesis, nonoxidative pentose-phosphate pathway, nucleotide biosynthesis, synthesis of enzymatic cofactors, and synthesis of protein precursors, i.e., aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNA)"

http://mmbr.asm.org/content/vol68/issue3/images/large/zmr0030420620001.jpeg "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:26 PM:

" BS,

Kevin's information isn't 30 years behind. Here's another example:

"As of 2004, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."-http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Definition/Origin_of_life/

You'll recognize I didn't cut and paste from a "Creation Science" site, but just plain science websites. This information isn't 30 years old, but current. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:12 PM:

" BS,

You're relying on HUGE assumptions, like:

"First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry.

These assumptions are not only vexing but progressively so, ending in a serious impediment to thought. That, indeed, may be why a number of biologists have lately reported a weakening of their commitment to the RNA world altogether, and a desire to look elsewhere for an explanation of the emergence of life on earth." -http://www.discovery.org/a/3209 "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:18 PM:

" To Welch, re: "I am NOT arguing that Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are the END ALL or BE ALL of science, history or anything else. I am simply recognizing their great importance to the DEVELOPMENT of the modern world."
-------------------------------------

This is, of course, obvious, but that's not what I was trying to get at: recent scientific developments point closely to the notion that pure atheism is PHYSICALLY correct and that gods and the 'supernatural' are literally impossible. The last refuge for a god or the supernatural exists in higher physical dimensions and at the Planck length. This is getting too abstract for this blog, but it looks like there is little refuge left even for 'well-reasoned' theology. My smart-alecky put-up-or-shut-up remarks hints at something deeper: god proofs are now within the province of theoretical physics. "

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:20 PM:

" I am NOT arguing that Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are the END ALL or BE ALL of science, history or anything else. I am simply recognizing their great importance to the DEVELOPMENT of the modern world. OF COURSE they are ALL to degree 'products' of the 'positivism' and democratic resurgence of the 19th century. But what is still so admirable about them, aside from their pioneeringly bold and courageous ideas, is that they retained the 'warmth' of the human past; they didn't dismiss it altogether but conflated it into a truer view of modernity. 'They might be giants' -- well indeed they were... "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Bats, re: "Like Kevin pointed out to you in the other Faith blog, science has not shown how life can come from non life or where life even comes from."

Nope, you're way out of date, even your very limited scientific knowledge is way old. Take a molecular bio course soon--learn what life really is, physically and chemically. Weak scientific knowledge has made you prone to superstitious nonsense: you think you know more than you really do. Humility is the first step toward intellectual advancement. Your statements regarding science show you've only a primitive grasp of basic scientific concepts. Don't take that as an insult: consider it a challenge. Science knows much more about life and "non-life" than you imagine. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:38 PM:

" BS

Like Kevin pointed out to you in the other Faith blog, science has not shown how life can come from non life or where life even comes from. Electrical current in a puddle has never shown to produce anything close to life, let alone reproductive, sustainable life.

Your hope and faith lies in man run science and that will let you down. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Welch,

All those men passed long ago: Darwin never learned about molecular biology, even Einstein missed out on much of modern physics. Science is a moving target: much of the mainstream modern religionists' critique of science aims at what science was, rather than is. Most of what Darwin, Freud and Newton thought has been superseded by ideas more in line with reality. What recently seemed to be only the domain of poets and philosophers is now under the scrutiny of neuroscientists and physicists.

"The Road to Reality"

Roger Penrose

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complete-Guide-Universe/dp/0679454438 "

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 6, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Jesus was a pacifist, yes a 'militant' one; he was FAR closer to Gandhi than to George W Bush and John McCain; EVEN a 'casual' reader of the gospels can comprehend that! 'Zeus lives' IF Zeus or any god has 'meaning' -- try watching the play-become-movie 'Equus' to understand that especially. (It's now revived on Broadway with the young 'Harry Potter' actor portraying the troubled boy and quite well apparently!) The 'gods' are symbolic as Hinduism (a religion even Sagan respected by the way) tells us; you 'use' the gods to discover your life's aims, its duties, its sufferings, its escapes etc. Personally I admire Darwin immensely -- with Marx, Freud and Einstein he is a founder of 'modernity' but even, no especially, Darwin had a 'religious' sensibility. The 'best' doubters always do... "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:20 AM:

" oops, anything, not any outside "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:19 AM:

" To Bates, re: "The "proof" of God is all around you, it's just that you want to give credit for your suroundings (human life, animal life, earth's ecosystem, etc.) to uncalulatable, extraordinarily, inconcievable coincidences"

No, all of that is just quarks and leptons, acting upon each other via the fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, gravity, the nuclear strong and weak (or electroweak) forces in quantum spacetime. That's it. That's all there is that we know. Any outside that is still speculative, including your gods/superaliens/whatever. References to your bible are circular--show me real proof! "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:51 PM:

" Michael Welsh may characterize me however he wants but militant pacifists have always been a physical force.

Now Michael will object to that statement and say that if a person is physically violent then that aren't really a pacifist regardless of what they call themselves.

However, when I say that if a person is physically violent in trying to "force" a person to be a Christian or punish them for not being a Christian, that that person isn't really a Christian regardless of what they call themselves, Michael will object.

With Michael, it's also a one way street, but you have to follow his way to be correct. I will follow Christ instead. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:46 PM:

" What you and others like you want is for God to meet your demands. That's not how God set the stage. People get the ultimate proof of God by stepping out in faith and accepting Jesus as savior. When a person does that, the Holy Spirit enters their life and they have internal assurance or proof.

The fact is that many people who saw Jesus's miracles still rejected him. I suppose God chose faith to be the avenue to Him because it shows Him people who truely want to be with Him. God gave us all free will, and you choose to reject God. I hope that you change your mind before you die, but if not, God will grant your wish of eternal separation from your Maker. "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 8:38 PM:

" The "proof" of God is all around you, it's just that you want to give credit for your suroundings (human life, animal life, earth's ecosystem, etc.) to uncalulatable, extraordinarily, inconcievable coincidences. You and people like you are not new. Even at in New Testament times, people like you existed.

Romans 1:19-22 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (unbelievers); for God hath shewed [it] unto them.


For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 5, 2008 5:12 PM:

" To Welch, re: "In many ways yes YOU ARE BOTH 'WRONG'"

No. Logic requires that one side be right. Either the Christian god physically exists or she doesn't. Either Zeus physically exists or he doesn't. The respective catechisms are mere detail: if the big Sky Daddy doesn't exist in the first place, why not instantaneously plunge the rest of it into the memory hole?

It's not the atheists' job to prove Sky Daddy exists, but it is right to expect that religionists ante up. That's all I ask: put up or shut up. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan. "

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:46 PM:

" 'Militant Christianity' has ALWAYS been 'a physical assault' if anyone bothers to read its 2000 year history. 'PO'B' can characterize me as he will but Christianity is hardly the innocent victim he depicts, as it has attacked other religions militarily (from the crusades to the Thirty years' wars to its colonizations in America, Africa and Asia) and employed Christian rhetoric for the most recent US wars as well. JESUS WAS A PACIFIST yes and it seems a 'militant' one as well but Christianity has always been well armed and dangerous to millions of other folk throughout history... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Well, after looking up Militant in a couple of different dictionaries I can see that there is one definition of the term that I and Robertson represent:

vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause

In the same sense though, Michael Welch is a militant pacifist.

What comes to mind for me, when you post a word like militant, is military or physical warfare. Militant Islam is physical warfare. Militant Christianity would be aggressive support or defense of Christianity, not physical warfare. That can be understood in the same way that Michael's militant pacifism is not (to my knowledge) a physical assult on anyone. "

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 5, 2008 3:13 PM:

" I WOULD AND HAVE called them 'militants' as I would call 'PO'B' -- I find literalism in religions indeed an equivalent of 'militancy' and I find statements by the late Falwell, Robertson et. al., often ignorant and fraught with political pander -- I find the same re: 'PO'B.' I am NOT presenting a 'double standard' here at all; I am criticizing BOTH views as unsophisticated, simplistic and with little purpose but to attack broadly and unfairly 'everyone' who doesn't think 'correctly' -- i. e. as the TWO of YOU ('brothers of the spear' whether you accept each other or not) DO. In many ways yes YOU ARE BOTH 'WRONG'... "

Phil O'Bates wrote on Oct 5, 2008 1:56 PM:

" Robertson and the like are not called facist or militant because they are neither. For you to do so tells us that you don't understand the plain meanings of those words and what Robertson and the like do and profess. "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 4, 2008 6:00 PM:

" To Welch: re: "militant atheists"

Why aren't the Falwell/Robertson/Swaggart crowd called militant religionists? Militant Christians? ChristoFascists? Radical Christianists? Just wondering...

If someone said that the earth was hollow, I'd call them delusional morons too. Why equivocate when the truth is so obvious? That doesn't imply that the hollow-earthers (they do exist) are bad people per se; they're just delusional morons.


See my replies in a parallel thread. "

Michael Welch wrote on Oct 4, 2008 12:43 PM:

" 'Big Spender' you're really 'in danger' of becoming the 'Phil O'Bates' of militant atheism; now maybe that's a compliment for you but 'PO'B' is obsessively poisonous re: Obama and anything that isn't in his version of religious right Republicanism. Now your continous hyperventilating and simplistic characterizations of 'Christians' -- while it may be VERY satisfying to you -- are becoming rather a mirror image of those you attack with such a broad and repetitive brush. It's PAST TIME that YOU TOO attempted a more 'thoughtful' and less 'ideological' approach. (The religious righties ignore me so perhaps now the militant atheists will but nevertheless you are doing your 'cause' more harm than good...) "

Big Spender wrote on Oct 4, 2008 10:45 AM:

" I wonder if LaX theaters have the guts to show Maher's film; I'll bet they'll cave in to the wacko religulous right.

Anyone who'd inflict Palin on America is in league with the devil.

Palin believes that the Xtian bible is literally true: she believes the talking snake story literally happened. She believes that men get swallowed up by whales. She believes in witches:

"Palin Witchcraft"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

Proof Christians are delusional morons:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ "


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the La Crosse Tribune.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The LaCrosse Tribune, please sign in now!
Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The LaCrosse Tribune requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
E-mail Address:
Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

First Name:
Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
 

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes



 
 
Dailies
La Crosse Tribune
Winona Daily News

Weeklies
Coulee News
Courier Life News
The Chronicle
Houston County News
Tomah Journal
Vernon Broadcaster
Westby Times

Regional
Inside Preps
My LIVE! Entertainment
Best of River Valley
Business Report
Healthy Living Today
Strictly Golf
River Valley Bike Trails
River Valley Blogs
River Valley Outdoors

Shoppers
Tri-County Foxxy

Marketplace
Newspaper Ads
Local Website Directory
7 Rivers Rentals
HomeSeller
Wheels Website
Outdoor Motors
Work For You

Portals
La Crosse NET
Winona NET

Classifieds
River Valley Classifieds

Links
Lee Enterprises

About Us | Classifieds | Contact Us | Terms of Use | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | Search | RSS | Videos | Advertiser Directory | Add to My Yahoo!
Copyright © 1997 - 2008 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.