Bill Maher Takes On Religion In New Documentary "Religulous" (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO)

Bill Maher has a new film "Religulous," a documentary slated for release October 3 and Huffington Post has an exclusive clip.

The documentary bills itself as an "uproarious nonfiction film about the greatest fiction ever told." It's directed by one of the guys who brought you Borat, Larry Charles, who was also the executive producer of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." You can probably guess that it's going to involve man-on-the-street interviews with unsuspecting believers and a mic-wielding Maher and "gotcha" interviews with religious fanatics who get tangled up in a web of their own contradictions.

Here's an exclusive clip from the movie:

Also, here's the extended trailer (the trailer music includes a clip from "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley):

In a statement about the film, Maher explained his rationale for making it:

It has been my pleasure over the last decade and a half to make organized religion one of my favorite targets. I often explained to people, "I don't need to make fun of religion, it makes fun of itself." And, then I go ahead and make fun of it too, just for laughs.

With religious fanatics like George Bush and Osama bin Laden now taking over the world, it seemed to me in recent years that this issue -- this cause of debunking the man behind the curtain -- needed to have a larger, more insistent and focused forum than late night television. I wanted to make a documentary, and I wanted it to be funny. In fact, since there is nothing more ridiculous than the ancient mythological stories that live on as today's religions, this movie would try to be a real knee slapper. Unless, of course, you're religious, then you might not like it.

As part of the film, Maher has also created a website, Disbeliefnet, as a parody of Beliefnet, the popular spiritual website.

Comments

[EarthToZoey]

Nobody believes Darwin (or anyone) was right about *everything*. But you'd have to be kidding yourself or be completely ignorant of empirical science to not see that the theory of evolution is an observable, quantifiable, defensible science. It isn't a "theory" in the common vernacular sense. It is a *scientific theory* which means it has undergone unbiased, rigorous scientific analysis. The preponderance of the evidence since the theory was first introduced has been in favor of the sound correctness of the hypothesis. In order to disprove the theory would be to disprove ALL of the underlying science which evaluated the evidential data. In other words, science would have to be turned on its head.

[whatsthatsound]

Sorry. Sometimes my irreverence leans toward irrelevance. But I still maintain that in a random universe, the guy who came up with the theory of evolution wouldn't look like a deity in a Reubens painting. Cosmic wink.

[whatsthatsound]

Richard Dawkins worships an infallible bearded old man in the sky, and the holy book he wrote. Really, he does. He KNOWS that "Origin of Species" was completely right about everything.

[Zanti]

Am I the only person who finds this thread impossible to navigate with all the "There are more comments on this thread" notices? I just gave up seeking out a comment I posted last night. So much for back and forth....

[EarthToZoey]

TmsPaine and Zanti:

I tried to post below but it's been an hour and still hasn't posted. I think that I have a good point and I hope you both can agree:

"The line to draw is this: If you make a claim (there is such a thing as a soul, God exists, the Earth is 6000 years old) - you must show some proof. Otherwise you are playing make-believe and should be treated as a child." - TmsPaine

Come on. If you are that intellectually strict, then you are your own brand of extreme. Why not draw the line at the Harm Principle?. If a person peacefully believes something (no matter how illogical or laughable) then what authority do we have to 'punish' them whether it be with weapons or words? What is the true danger in someone believing what we find to be silly? I'd rather be tolerant and talk with the person to 'understand' why they believe what they believe. Then, if appropriate, articulate another point of view.

There are some things that we should, of course, not allow "in the name of religion". Denigration of another human being, comes to mind. Laws made based on dogmatic principles rather than objective morals, is another. Otherwise, we humans are free to think, believe, and feel what we think. Pushing "logic" onto a person you find unreasonable or admonishing them for believing in something "false" is not being enlightened. It's being petty and cruel. Furthermore, it is ineffective.

[EarthToZoey]

Here. I'm not a brilliant philosopher, but John Stuart Mill was. Take his words for it since he illustrates the Harm Principle beautifully in the opening to On Liberty:

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

[Zanti]

Which, of course, is precisely why the Maher- and Dawkins-variety atheists portray religion as dangerous. Otherwise, they'd be forced to label their bullying attacks as just that.

They want to bully while being let off the hook for their actions. And, of course, there's always the "it's only humor" fallacy, as if comics weren't responsible for what they assert (or as if they didn't influence opinion). Maher's contempt for religion is not a gag--he obviously regards faith as idiotic and harmful. We who rebut his view are simply claiming the same free-speech rights he enjoys.

[EarthToZoey]

TmsPaine: I just reread my first post and I realize that I come across as rude and condescending in the first sentence of my response to you. Apologies.

[EarthToZoey]

Here. I am not a brilliant philosopher, but John Stuart Mill was. He illustrates The Harm Principle beautifully in his essay On Liberty:

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

[TmsPaine]

EtoZ - I spent two hours crafting a devastating reply. Just when I was about to hit the post button, I read your "apology" post. So I checked out your MySpace page. Now I have to completely re-write my rebuttal to reflect the new awesome respect I have for you. I still disagree, though...

[EarthToZoey]

Aww. Haha. No worries. I can take an intellectual punch or two! I've been known to be wrong, so I'm open to reading your response. :)

[Zanti]

As I expected, my words about Maher and his attitude were met with the usual--I need to have a sense of humor, Maher is just being funny, why am I questioning the right of athesists to disbelieve, etc., etc.

I'm tired of addressing such red herrings--disagreeing with someone is not the same as questioning their right to hold an opinion. For instance, I think anyone who votes for McCain is sadly misled, but I don't question anyone's right to vote for him. Elementary.

What I do want to know is, how can anyone read Maher's comments above and/or watch the promo video and conclude that Maher is a) joking, or b) specifically targeting religious extremists?

"We're making a documentary about religion." Not religious fanaticism.

"So, you would agree that, even if a billion people believe something, it can still be ridiculous."--Maher. Obviously, billion doesn't refer to a subset of believers.

And this, from the blog: ""I don't need to make fun of religion, it makes fun of itself."

Explain to me, please, how Maher is being less than serious. I mean, if those aren't his actual views, where does he indicate as much? When and where did he make the extremist distinction?

My point remains the same: This is election season, and we can't be antagonizing ANY segment of the public. We need all the votes we can get.

[EarthToZoey]

(Part 1)
You are absolutely right. Ridicule serves no one any good, and it is especially detrimental in an election season. The true test of tolerance is to resist the urge to silence those we disagree with the most.

When we discuss fundamental topics, such as religion, in a divisive and derisive fashion, nothing is learned. When someone's message is delivered in a judgmental and humiliating way, It is only human to vehemently defend our own belief and shut out the other person altogether (no matter how valid they may be).

When intolerance grows in a society, people are more likely to avoid those of differing viewpoints and surround themselves only with people who think like they do in order to feel "safe" from condescending judgment. This isolationism is happening with many Muslims who are experiencing increased intolerance (and downright hate) from many who misunderstand them. Some Christians are leaving the Democratic party because they are disgusted by atheists who insist that their beliefs have no place in public discourse. And many Christians consistently conflate atheism with amorality. Ignorance leads to intolerance, and intolerance comes from all sides.

[EarthToZoey]

(Part 2)
We, as a society, need to learn how to have an open and honest debate free from personal attacks. It is natural to get heated or make a thoughtless remark now and then -- we all do. But we must be cognizant that the person we are communicating with is a person of feeling. This does not mean we should tip toe around and avoid reasoned argument. But we should strive for civility.

When it comes to religion, we should all remember that the promise of America (and indeed of liberalism) is a moral foundation for society that transcends religious differences. Freedom to believe or not believe, however you see fit, is an important right that we should defend for ALL -- since history has shown liberties such as these are often taken away in times of great intolerance.

[KillgoreTrout43]

"The Christianity of the majority consists roughly of two notions: First, the saying about "the little child," that one becomes a Christian as a little child, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; the second notion is the thief on the cross.
People live by virtue of the former-in death they reckon upon consoling themselves with the example of the thief. That is the sum of thier Christianity, and rightly defined, it is a mixture of childishness and crime."

Soren Kierkegaard

[KillgoreTrout43]

"If I had to choose between God and air-conditioning, I'd choose air-conditioning."...Woody Allen

[Zanti]

By the way, in case no one is paying attention, the Dem candidate for POTUS is a man of religion. Is this really the time to be turning up the volume on this kind of thing? How about retiring the faith-bashing stuff long enough to get our guy in the White House? The last thing we need to do, at this vital point, is cater to the perception that we're the anti-faith party. We'll have time enough AFTER Obama gets in office to play the all-believers-are-Fundies game to our hearts' delight. Playing it now is one sure way to shoot ourselves in the foot, given that the general public doesn't share the contempt for religion that's come (in the media, at least) to characterize our party.

And frankly, folks, I don't know how many toes we have left.

[EarthToZoey]

How are a few posts indicative of the whole? There are plenty of Republicans who are non-believers and there are plenty of Democrats who are devoutly religious. People who believe otherwise are buying into propaganda or are cherry picking their own experiences based on their preconceived notions. I think we should just allow individuals to express their ideas in any way they see fit.

I take issue with the implication that my being non-religious is something I should be ashamed of because it may "reflect poorly" on the candidate I support. Obama is religious -- wonderful! I don't have to mirror every belief, policy, and position he supports.

[Zanti]

Okay, I'll try again.

I didn't suggest that a few posts of indicative of the whole. I'm talking about a major popular trend, of which this blog post is only one example.

I didn't stereotype re party, so I have no idea why you brought that up.

As for allowing people to express their ideas as they see fit, by disagreeing with a view and the manner in which it's being conveyed, I'm hardly debating anyone's right to hold that view. Rather, I'm questioning the wisdom of engaging in this kind of thing during a tight election season in which we're trying to sell a candidate of faith to the public. Sure, we have every right to express contempt for the average voter by way of bashing religion and the religious. But I tend to feel--and you may disagree--that we need to COURT the average voter, not alienate him. In my book, the idea is to win, not lose, votes.

[whatsthatsound]

EtoZ, your brand of disbelief is copacetic, because it just presents itself as a valid viewpoint, and places itself in the democracy of ideas about the nature of reality. Zanti is referring to the Maher/Hitchens/Snikwad brand of atheism that arrogantly ridicules people who don't believe as they do. Even if they vote for Obama, they'll consider him to be a deluded fool. They would never write, "Obama is religious-wonderful!", as you do.

[KillgoreTrout43]

You give Maher way too much power. Everybody knows he's got a chip on his shoulder toward religion. He's not that influential.

[Zanti]

True. Anyone who gets an exclusive at a highly popular Internet site can't be, can he?

[Zanti]

What a self-important person. (The G-rated version of what I actually said as the promo played.)

In other words, it's the same ol', neverending, barf-inducing Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris-style propaganda. The dishonest and base equating of religion with fundamentalism. Fundies (almost by definition!) are a small portion of believers, but folks like Maher have no time (or respect) for facts. Not when they get in the way of making a cheap buck.

Unless the movie is very, very different from this snide blurb, I guess we can't expect a fair representation of religion or religious beliefs. In other words, WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

I'd LOL, but I've lost the ability to even smirk at the likes of Maher. A smart and talented man but massively insecure intellectually. He can't feel smart unless he smirks to the camera at the stupidity of it all. Which is damned easy to do when you deliberately surround yourself with stupidity. Can you say "fixed"?

Of course, Maher uses the age-old medicine show con of characterizing anyone who would criticize him as enemies of the truth. Sorry, Bill--by limiting your take on religion to the most intolerant, text-literal varieties thereof, you're presenting a lie. I have no problem labeling a lie a lie. And a liar a liar.

[whatsthatsound]

You nailed it. The Snikwad-ians justify their disdain, their Flying Spaghetti Monster and Tooth Fairy put downs, etc., because they imagine themselves to be in the front line of a war on intolerance. The fact that they, themselves, are being intolerant seems totally lost on them. I think it's the same obtuseness, the inability to process nuance and paradox, that makes them unable to differentiate between the many types and varieties of religious folk. And what makes it impossible for them to have any sort of meaningful spiritual experience.

[EarthToZoey]

The use of "Snikwad-ians" is just as demeaning and condescending as using the term "Bible thumpers". The Bible AND The God Delusion both bare truths. It is okay to admit that without denying which side you come down on.

[TheBlackCat]

I posted this for REDROVERs benefit but I think it could use repeating.


The internet is annonymous. There are no consequences to what you say, and incendiary threads breed incendiary remarks. Also those with the strongest sentiments are most likely to post. Yet it seems SO many people online base their ENTIRE views of other groups based on internet comments.

I.E.: some Obama supporter will say something stupid, and the replies will be "HA, See, THIS is what Obama supporters are like!" That ONE person's ONE remark cements Obama supporters as stupid. The internet is not a good way to judge how another group thinks and behaves, because the moderates are unlikely to participate in these discussions!

If you go looking for evil in a group, you will surely find it. And internet threads are probably the best place to find participants of ANY group at their very worst.

Isn't anyone active in their community anymore? Volunteer! Join an intramural sports team! Take a pottery class! These are positive enviornments, unlike emotional internet threads. If you take part in a NON PARTISAN, SECULAR activity, you will meet people of different religious and political persuasions in a non incendiary environment. You will see them at their BEST, not their WORST. And you will see how different we're NOT.

Religious people aren't all stupid and scared. Non religious people aren't all cynical and miserable. Leftists aren't all communists and rightists aren't all greedy scumbags.

[TheBlackCat]

LOL, on Bill's disbeliefnet website there is an ad for the Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry "Get higher with a higher power." Now that's a religion I could get behind!

[KillgoreTrout43]

It's called Rastafarianism. Bill's a hypocrite.

[EarthToZoey]

I'm stuck in Milwaukee this week for business and, as luck would have it, one of my clients just gave me tickets for Maher's show tonight. Talk about coincidence -- especially since I've been commenting on this article for the past couple of days. I just hope he plays the Real Time theme for his entrance. For some reason I really like it. ;)

[AzRealProgressive]

Drink a lot of beer before you go. It helps with the humor.

[EarthToZoey]

Yeah!! He played the intro!! It was an awesome show. Great crowd.

AZ, you would have been so proud -- some of your friends were protesting outside the theater holding signs telling us we're all going to H E L L. :P

[AzRealProgressive]

Glad you enjoyed the show ! Did you tell my friends there that you already had your ticket in hand?

[24kgoldk]

I've just joined the church of the apathetic agnostics: We don't know and we don't care!!

[w&cheneysuck]

Where do I sign up?

[Zanti]

At the Cliche Clearing House, Same Ol', Nebraska.

[w&cheneysuck]

THis documentary will be interesting in that it's getting so much attention here and it's just a matter of time until we see it in the MSM....Dialogue is good; name calling and chastising is bad. Isn't that the point here? If you are Christian you would have a more tolerant view and try to understand first then be understood. There lies the problem....a lot of folks here can't listen unless they agree...sad.

[daedalux]

I read through a number of these posts and all I want to say to everyone: JUST STOP AND LISTEN TO YOURSELVES FOLKS!!! Your are all recreating Bill Maher's movie!!!

(Of course, non of us have seen it, but we act like we know it so well.)

Some of us take ourselves way too seriously and can't stop for a moment and neither: 1) reflect on our behaviours and ways of being; nor, 2) simply laugh at ourselves once in a while.

I think that's part of the point: we become so entrenched in our beliefs (whatever they are) that we stop appreciating the life that is right in front of us.

[w&cheneysuck]

Thank you; my thoughts exactly!

[MACS]

.
I believe that a sign of maturity is when you can laugh "AT" yourself and "WITH" others.
.

[EarthToZoey]

Exactly. Even my devoutly religious grandmother can laugh at a joke about religion. If you're secure in what you believe without being fanatical, it shouldn't come as a threat.