Religulous - Movie Review

What could very well be one of the most controversial films this year has just begun it's reign of unholy terror in the theaters. Religulous, directed by Larry Charles (Borat), and stars the outspoken Bill Maher (Real Time with Bill Maher), is set out to be a documentary about the absurdity in the certitude of religious belief and the social/political impacts religion seemingly has. Keep in mind that both the director and star of the film have comedic backgrounds, and if you have seen any preview of the movie (or if you know what Maher's take on religion is), you already have a taste of what to expect.

The movie starts off nicely, with Maher telling tales of him and his family and their own religious situations from past to present. Maher discusses with his family how after a certain event, they began to go to church less and less. Maher then questions his mother on what her thoughts on god were presently and she comes to the conclusion that she doesn't know. Maher quickly says back "Well, that's my answer too". At this point, Maher's direction of the movie sheds light and things begin to escalate.

Maher and Charles go across the globe visiting numerous religious hot spots (and some not so hot spots). From a church made out of a truck trailer to the Vatican itself, Maher sets out to question numerous types of people from numerous faiths. The line of questioning Maher has isn't exactly philosophical or thought provoking. The questions he asks were mainly for comedic value, and the people he interviews are caught by suprise largely due to Charles' form of documenting he parallels from Borat which is "Don't ask what you can and can't do, just do it until you get the boot". This makes for a very funny documentary, but at the same time, Maher does not seem to help his cause.

This is to be expected though. I have already read a number of other reviews for this movie and 99% of the reviews are fair, but they are missing the larger picture. It seems to me the movie reviewers went into the theater expecting to be completely enlightened by watching highly intellectual dialogue that ends with Maher converting everyone in the theater from religious to non-religious. For Charles and Maher to have done this would have been box-office suicide. Their film had to be a comedy first and documentary second for a number of reasons. One mainly being that both of them are known for their comedic works; it is almost expected of them to provide something funny. Another reason being they would most likely lose a lot of sales if people found out their movie was going to be a droll lecturing of philosophy and theology (which I'm sure appeals to a large group of people, but that group is no where near as large as the group comedy appeals to).

As I said, it was a comedy first and documentary second, and that becomes more apparent as the film comes to it's conclusion. After all of Maher's crazy comedic adventures trotting across the religious mindset, he comes to a very serious conclusive monologue. Maher states he is worried about where this certitude of beliefs over religion will lead humanity as he says "We learned to precipitate mass death before we got over the neurological disorder of wishing for it". He leaves us with a final plea to think critically and apply some doubt to faith and religion like we do the same everywhere else in our lives.

My rating for this movie is going to be split up in two, because I think that it wouldn't be fair to evaluate it over one rubric.

As a comedy, I give this film a 3.5/5. It was classic Bill Maher comedy done "Borat Style" (for the lack of a better adjective). Some of the jokes though have become cliched and old but Maher still finds a way to re-invent the old while still applying his own spin with some inventive, never heard before, comedy.

As a documentary, I give this film a 2.5/5. The reason I give it this score is most likely due to Charles' directing. This is as much a documentary on religion as Borat was on the American lifestyle. It lacked the intellectual edge that was needed to convince "fence-sitters" or to get a religious person to even begin to question their faith. If it wasn't for the ending conclusion of the movie where Maher actually gets serious and comes up with thought-provoking questions and ideas (which he never elaborated on), this score would have been even worse.

If you're an atheist, non-religious or a non-believer, go see the film for some good laughs but don't expect too much else. If you are religious, I would still suggest you see the movie, but for different reasons. Since you wouldn't find the comedy aspect all too comedic, some religious people (or really just anyone, but religious people is who the message was aimed to) can still get a good message out of the movie if watched with an open mind.

"The worst form of human rights violation in the world"

"I do not approve of a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

I am a frequent visitor, and a fan, of the site You Tube because I have always seen it as a great proponent of free speech and open forum. Anyone from around the world (granted they have internet access) is able to upload a video, where in this video, they can express any opinion or belief they hold, as well as reply to other videos with their credit or criticism.

Or so I thought.

Please note I am well aware that YouTube does need some form of moderating as many users abuse certain aspects of the website (there are also occasions where users break copy-right laws from plagiarizing third party material). Granted those terms, it still should leave users free to upload their own videos expressing their opinions. Okay, now to get to the point.

I noticed that one of the users on YouTube I had subscribed to had one of their videos go missing rather abruptly. To my knowledge, this user has never had one of their video's taken down, so I found it rather odd and did some investigating (the video I am talking about has been reposted here).

So why and how did the video get taken down? Prepare to be shocked (or not).

“uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world. Attacks on the values and tenets of Islam are extremely dangerous and unacceptable.”

That's right! It seems the free speech and open forum I enjoy so much at YouTube caves to the "authority" of religious beliefs and crazy fundamentalists.

That quote is quite a mouthful. Interesting how Dr. Adel Al-Damkhi feels free to spew his own beliefs and opinions when he seems so quick to shut opposing views up. He even goes as far as to say that criticizing his religious beliefs is worse then holding him hostage for the entirety of his life while subjecting him to the worst torture imaginable. But then again, that's probably right in line with his religious morals.

If this is the case then I am truly a horrible, horrible person.

As a final note, I hope that YouTube will unblock this video, and in the future allow people to express their opinions. Yet another case of religion getting more respect and authority then it deserves. At least this time no one has been killed over it. Yet.

The Name of the Game

I’ve been meaning to start a blog for quite some time now and I’m glad I have gotten around to it. I suppose, as well as many other bloggers, that the best way to kick off my blog would be to explain the name and nature of it.

The name for my blog didn’t come to me right away. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have even thought of it if it wasn’t for my fellow blogging friend, Tommy. He too has a rather imaginative spin on a well known philosophical concept. His blog is called Occam’s Shaving Cream, which is a spin on Occam’s Razor. I was tickled by the name and decided that I should try to come up with something similar that had some meaning as well.

I’m sure most of you have heard of Pascal’s Wager, but if not, just follow the link. Blaise Pascal first came up with the wager to defend religious belief, or a general belief in a god. I hope to have a post in the near future about this wager and also like-minded uses of bad reasoning that need debunking.

The debunking of bad reasoning is the essence of what I want my blog name to mean. I strive to make the nature of my blog the conscience of reason (to some degree anyways), so the name Pascal’s Bookie, in a sense, means that to me. The bookie is the person who takes wagers and then pays winnings depending on the results and the odds. What this means to my blog is that I wish to give credit to reason and discredit to ill-reason after thorough inspection. The Bookie reasons out “odds” and applies them to “wagers”. In much the same way, I hope to use reason to determine what is most likely and what is not, or what is reality versus unreality.

Still don’t know what I mean? It will become clearer in future posts so stick around!