Review: Religulous
Filed under: Documentary, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, Celebrities and Controversy

(We're re-posting our review of Religulous from the Toronto Film Festival to coincide with the film's theatrical release this week)
By: James Rocchi
I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F. Roberts
In Religulous, stand-up social commentator Bill Maher doesn't just assert how he believes in one less god than many of us, and he doesn't just craft bold, bizarre and hilarious moments of comedy and discussion with the help of director Larry Charles (Borat). More importantly, and more intriguingly, Maher states the film's thesis in an introduction filmed at Megiddo, the prophesied location of the final battle of Armageddon as written in Revelation; Maher, much like author Sam Harris does in his excellent (if dry) book The End of Faith, proposes that religious belief, in an age of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, actively endangers humanity through encouraging conflict, promising rewards for irrational behavior, justifying artificial divisions and enabling other unfounded and unkind forms of thinking. Or, as Maher succinctly puts it early on, "When Revelations was written, only God had the power to destroy the world. ..."
And then the opening titles kick in, a montage of Maher globe-trotting in search of people to talk to, and as the guitar riffs of The Who's "The Seeker" ring out, we recognize that we're going to get plenty of sizzle along with the steak in Religulous, lots of showbusiness to liven up the soul-searching. Like most documentaries dealing with weighty matters, though, the concern in Religulous isn't that there'll be no sizzle with the steak but rather if there'll be steak to go with the sizzle; does Religulous have the right ratio of factual points to funny punch lines, a balanced mix of context and comedy?
That answer will vary depending on your tastes -- I for one found some of the film's straw-man interviews, like Maher's interview with the figurehead of an Amsterdam-based church of "Cantheism" (which uses marijuana as a sacrament and seems to partake in their equivalent of communion a lot), more irritating than enlightening. What any observer will appreciate in Religulous, though, is the bravery, bravado and blunt force Maher and Charles bring to the film. Maher interviews the Rev. Jeremiah Cummings, an ex-member of Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, and inquires about Cummings' well-heeled appearance. Cummings tells Maher "The people want you to live well. ..." Maher counters instantly: "That's what pimps say about their women."
But if Religulous were just a series of these kind of confrontations (and there are several of them, with Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and more; Maher goes out of his way to be an equal-opportunity provocateur) it would quickly grow stale. Religulous also mixes in inventively shot and cut digressions about everything from the percentage of the American population represented by non-believers (16%, which Maher points out as a unheard, unfocused minority) to the more ornate points of Mormon theology (where the Mormon idea that Native Americans are one of the lost tribes of Israel is met with a short, sharp shock of a classic Mel Brooks clip). And just as in Borat, there are even great subtitle jokes annotating the matters at hand, like when the film points out the model triceratops wearing a saddle at a "Creation Museum," or has arrows on-screen indicating the "infidels" in a scene shot inside a mosque, or delineates the similarities between the story of Jesus and the Egyptian god Horus, fact and images cut against each other to the bouncy chords of The Bangles' "Walk Like an Egyptian."
The fact of the matter is that, much like Super Size Me's look at fast food and big business following the publication of Fast Food Nation, Religulous is coming on the heels of much better books about the same topic -- Harris' The End of Faith, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. But those books were meant to be factual and informative, not informative and funny and, more depressingly, who reads these days, anyhow? Religulous will certainly inspire controversy; whether or not it will inspire actual conversation is yet to be seen.
Religulous will not inspire any person of faith to give up their beliefs, of course -- and whether you see that as a demonstration of unyielding devotion or unthinking dogma will, again, depend on your point of view -- but Maher and Charles, to their credit, seem to be focusing their film more at challenging non-believers than believers. Maher's big finish for Religulous is tonally very similar to the way he closes out his HBO show Real Time -- a stern, serious discussion that follows the jokes like serving broccoli after dessert -- where Maher's line of argument is that non-believers need to step up, speak out and be heard to try and change the course of public opinion, that religious 'moderates' need to see their behavior as dangerous, enabling complicity that helps empower radical elements which cannot go unnoticed or unchallenged in an age where, as Maher puts it, "We learned to precipitate mass death before we got over the neurological disorder of wishing for it." And Maher also -- in his own words, in his own way -- conveys the conflict felt by every non-believer who would like to believe in a just, kind and loving god but can't. Religulous is full of contradictions -- it's a funny film about some depressing things, it's a lighthearted tour through terrorism, injustice and intolerance. But those contradiction and challenges are, ultimately, what make the film linger uneasily in your mind, reaching past comedy and confrontation to challenge the audience with a fierce and forceful prayer that there might be no god.
For more on Religulous, see our interview with Bill Maher
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
9-30-2008 @ 1:12PM
Noel Dusek said...
I don't have enough faith to be an athiest. More power to Bill Maher. I wonder, when he is on his deathbed, if he will still be strong in his convictions that there is no God.
Reply
9-30-2008 @ 3:40PM
Eric H said...
Thanks for that new argument, after you are done putting us in our place can we all play nice?
10-01-2008 @ 11:55AM
Kevin said...
Excellent point. When people are about to die and willing to believe in ANYTHING then they can turn to Faeries to and Elves in the hopes that mythical beings can save them from death. I just hope that if my heart stops in the middle of nowhere that Zeus can throw one of his lightning bolts at my chest to keep me going...oh wait...THATS ridiculous.
10-06-2008 @ 2:13PM
Steve said...
That's addressed early in the movie if you'd bother to watch it before commenting on it.
9-30-2008 @ 1:54PM
Duane Johnson said...
I think Bill, and other atheists like him such as Richard Dawkins who “go on the offense” are making a mistake for two reasons:
1. In centuries past, those who have sought freedom from religion have been persecuted for their lack of belief in God. Bruno is perhaps the ultimate example. If atheism has within its system a superior ethic for the treatment of other human beings, shouldn’t its proponents lead out? The mockery and persecution of others for their beliefs is, in my view, the antithesis of ethical atheism. Rational argument, tolerance, education, and uplifting humanism on the other hand, is what I see as the height of doubt.
2. Irrational belief is the “default setting” for human beings, and as long as our species has death and birth, irrational belief in something will always outpace the philosophy of doubt. Since doubt requires considerable time and education, atheists—by mathematical constraint—will always be in the minority. Mocking the religious, therefore, may be a grave tactical error in the fight for populous doubt: a short-term win may become the impetus for a long-term washout. Supposing religious belief is ignorance, then the opposition need only reproduce faster to win; meanwhile, atheists need to both reproduce and educate their offspring.
If you are an atheist, I hope you will hear this plea: Don’t take the low road to “bringing people around” to your view. It will backfire.
http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2008/09/30/why-atheists-shouldnt-make-fun-of-religious-believers/
Reply
9-30-2008 @ 3:13PM
Nick said...
Wow, just wow Duane. Its people like you that this world is what is it is today. I have no problem with people believing what they want, but please try to make some sense with your arguements.
Yes i agree people were persecuted in centuries past. Want to know more about centuries past?? Anyone who wasn't white and male was considered inferior. Should we base our decisions on how things were "in centuries past". I certianly hope not.
10-01-2008 @ 4:37PM
Robert said...
An Atheist's reply: Richard Dawkins strenuously avoids heated religious arguments as a rule, check out his website. I agree with a lot of what you're saying but there are a few things you might want to remember, mainly that, as you probably know, it is next to impossible to not upset a religious individual when politely discussing religion. They will "feel" offended but what is actually going on most of the time is that they are mad at the fact that you made them question, often for the first time, the ridiculous delusion that is their religion and many people are not sure how to respond. So any discussion between an atheist and a religious person can and often is, defined by another religious person as a brutish attack with religious people screaming INTOLERANCE!! Speaking of, I also vehemently disagree with your suggestion that atheist's should be more tolerant. Tolerating the insane practices and beliefs of religion is exactly what every new and old atheist should never do. Should we tolerate what is increasingly being called the takeover of Europe by Muslims? The Muslims that refuse to assimilate and insist that Europe adopt their insane Muslim laws that would keep a women from attaining an education, voting, being allowed to leave their house without a male escort, legal killings of raped Muslim women and the list stretches on and on. Should we tolerate Insane Jewish Rabbis who perform perverse and unsanitary circumcisions? Allow the Catholics/Christians to reverse Roe v Wade or worse, kill abortion doctors because of their religiously poisoned ideology? And why are we so accepting of any of our leaders who actually allow religion to influence any political decisions that will affect us. BTW this country was not founded on religion in even the most remote way. In fact our founding fathers made absolutely sure to make it crystal clear that our leaders were never to associate with religion in it's governance. Our founding fathers would be appalled and disgusted with what was going on today....do the research if you think I'm wrong. This country is many things but it was never "under God."
Tolerance of religion is the cowardly atheist's justification for inaction against the insanity that religion breeds and unfortunately as you suggested, it is still breeding everywhere. But I also disagree that atheists will always be 'outnumbered.' People are starting to wake up and see the dangers that religion poses and how this type of bizarre fantasy is losing it's place in the ever increasingly modern world. It's time for Jesus and Allah and the rest to go into the bin of history along with Poseidon and other such characters. Although most Atheists are softening their touch and becoming more diplomatic, the gentle pressure must remain with a sharper and increasingly determined consistency.
9-30-2008 @ 5:12PM
Jeremy said...
Nick, it's grammar like yours that makes me cringe.
Reply
9-30-2008 @ 5:21PM
GL said...
Amen!
10-01-2008 @ 9:59AM
Bungholio said...
I find Bill Maher irritating and efite. Where ever this person came from (Canada?) I wish they would take him back. When Bill Maher dies God will probably wipe his ass with him.
Reply
10-01-2008 @ 9:41PM
Sue said...
Oh diddums! Did the nasty man upset you?
If you disagree with Bill Maher's position, that's fine, but statements like "God will probably wipe his ass with him" does nothing to reinforce the rationality of YOUR position.
It is vile little remarks like that that cause thinking people to reject religion in favour of a kinder, more humanistic approach.
Try to practice a little more of the love supposedly espoused by Christianity and a little less of the prejudice and close-mindedness. Ta!
10-02-2008 @ 10:55AM
eric said...
The joke is on you. Beliving in a man in the sky who knows all and hears your wispers, but need lots of money. That sounds very logical.
9-30-2008 @ 7:18PM
Robin said...
As an atheist I honestly don't care if you believe (or if W believes, or Obama, or McCain, or anyone I watch on TV/movies). When your believing (or believing that god told you to go to war with Iraq, for example) puts me in a bad position, I speak out. I guess that's why Harris/Dawkins/Maher are more out and about lately. More and more stupid decisions are being made with religion as the reason and it impacts where my tax dollars go.
That being said, the movie sounds great and I can't wait to go see it.
Reply
10-17-2008 @ 2:22AM
Garrett said...
Do you have peace in your life?
9-30-2008 @ 8:00PM
Charlotte said...
I'd like to see this film. Bill Maher intrigues me. From his interviews, I understand he wants people to stop being Christian for the betterment of mankind. I don't believe Athiests will take over anytime soon. When Richard Dawkins came to my city to speak, people spoke of his arrival as if the Bubonic Plague was headed our way. People are way too attached to Christianity.
Reply
10-01-2008 @ 7:32AM
Thom said...
Oh dear, where to begin.
"Duane Johnson said...
1. In centuries past, those who have sought freedom from religion have been persecuted for their lack of belief in God. Bruno is perhaps the ultimate example. If atheism has within its system a superior ethic for the treatment of other human beings, shouldn’t its proponents lead out? The mockery and persecution of others for their beliefs is, in my view, the antithesis of ethical atheism. Rational argument, tolerance, education, and uplifting humanism on the other hand, is what I see as the height of doubt."
Atheism doesn't require a structured system of ethics. And how do you go from atheists being persecuted to religious individuals being persecuted. Interestingly, you unintentionally make the point that everyone can be persecuted regardless of any type of belief. Both ethical behavior (and unethical behavior) and persecution of any novel type of social group are both part of human nature, and have evolved as such.
Claiming that the "height of doubt" results from a systematic observation of observable phenomena on our planet is the silliest and most inane argument I've ever witnessed. I don't know what to say because that claim makes no sense and has absolutely no backbone.
"2. Irrational belief is the “default setting” for human beings, and as long as our species has death and birth, irrational belief in something will always outpace the philosophy of doubt. Since doubt requires considerable time and education, atheists—by mathematical constraint—will always be in the minority. Mocking the religious, therefore, may be a grave tactical error in the fight for populous doubt: a short-term win may become the impetus for a long-term washout. Supposing religious belief is ignorance, then the opposition need only reproduce faster to win; meanwhile, atheists need to both reproduce and educate their offspring."
But irrational thought is not a default setting of human nature. Game theorists and anyone adopting a stance of common sense will easily see that yes, pure rationality is not pervasive in human ethology, but if human behavior was wholly irrational, then why are we still here on this planet? That argument you make is silly.
The assumption that nonbelief requires time and education is wrong. You can easily conclude there is no God through a wide variety of simple thought experiments or real-world experiments. You do not need a degree in evolution or philosophy.
In addition, you assume that belief is genetically carried down through generations, which is incorrect. It is not a context of which side has more babies - how silly! There's no contest at all, actually. Still though, perhaps mocking the religious is not the best way to express one's own beliefs.
However, when fundamentalists try to pervasively influence the direction of government, using belief to systematically discriminate against individuals - that is an ultimate source of unethical behavior, and mockery and anything else can and understandably should be used as a method of protest.
Reply
10-01-2008 @ 10:06AM
Mary Ann said...
Atheists and religious fundamentalists of any stripe have far more in common than they are different.
They each believe in a dualistic world view; there's the world here on earth and there's the heavens, where there either is or isn't a god, depending upon which side your on.
When Maher says he doesn't believe in God, he's primarily challenging the sometimes illogical beliefs of many religions.
But there's a whole other belief system out there--those of us who have a more monoist point of view when it comes to God, who's perhaps better described as the Universal Spirit infusing everything. In this world view, God is everywhere one looks, and far from being creatures put on earth by some omnipotent force to exploit it until we die (and then go to heaven, the *real* destintation), we are instead one with it, as we are with each other.
I won't get into the specifics of what I and others like me believe, but suffice to say I don't live in the "either/or" world of Bill Maher and religious fundamentalists. I don't believe in the Creationist God, but I'm not an atheist either.
To my ears, Bill and those he interviews are all preaching dogma, and it's all boring.
Reply
10-01-2008 @ 12:08PM
Kevin said...
I wouldn't go so far as to "far more in common" but I can see where you are coming from. I happen to be an atheist, but my disagreement with you is largely theoretical, and I accept the possibility that your view point certainly could be true. I don't happen to think so, but I concede that its possible that some everlasting, all encompassing force binds all of the universe together. I think what atheist (at least in my experience) get upset about is when one argues that a 1000 year old man led two of every animal onto a boat, or that some old guy in the sky said "Hmm, you know what this ball needs? Liquid!". When those stories are taken literally, and then forced down peoples throats, then logical arguments must be raised to curb those opinions. And despite what rational believers might think, try walking around many parts of this country saying you don't believe in any God and see how angry and aggressive people get. I went to school in SC, and at the time I was merely a skeptic, and people that didn't know me would try and force their opinions on me. That was bad enough, but unfortunately we have a government now (and for only a short time longer...thank god :)) that has been trying to do that to the country as a whole. That attitude necessitates a response, and (as someone stated earlier) is probably the reason for the increased activity of high profile atheists in the last few years.
10-01-2008 @ 6:55PM
Dave said...
Belief in a higher power is 100% to do with Ego. People cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that they have no greater purpose other than to live and die and I use the term "Purpose" loosely.
The believers argument that their must be something greater who created is at its core just silly. They can accept an existance without a creator but when asked who created god they say no one. So reality as we know it cannot just exist but some all powerful creator requires no creator? This stuff is in the same realm as greek/roman mythology.
I am always asked if there is no god then how did we get here. Simple answer "I don't know" but I am not going to make up the answer and proclaim it fact.
All this I don't believe in god but I am spiritual is poppycock as well. Just accept the fact that you are more than likely just an oddity floating around on a piece of cosmic dust.
Reply
10-17-2008 @ 2:22AM
Garrett said...
Dave
It's not that there must be something greater, it's that there is.