In defense of religion,Amen
October 29, 2008 by Dirk
There is satire and there is ridicule.
Sarah Dreier,of Faith and Progressive Policy an initiative of the Center for American Progress,reviews Bill Maher’s film ‘Religulous’. She demonstrates,quite convincingly,that the film is just faith bashing of the most pedestrian kind.
She writes how Maher cherry picks,using religious fanatics to illustrate how believers are supposedly feeble minded.
In one scene of Bill Maher’s much-discussed new movie, Religulous, Maher talks with a zealot tourist at Florida’s Holy Land Experience Jesus theme park who assured Maher that she will triumphantly return to Earth after the Rapture—adorned in seraphic attire, no less—to help save the souls of non-believers. This is just one of many interviews with a cherry-picked religious fanatic that make up the movie. Maher, the crass and (at times) very funny comedian and HBO talk show host, travels around the world to talk to Christian, Muslim, and Jewish votaries about their faiths. Although Maher makes some good points about the bad effects that proselytizing can have on public policy,
The voices and views of a few fanatics does not a critique of religion make. For example…
A recent poll showed that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, and 70 percent of those who believe in God reject dogmatic approaches to belief. But you wouldn’t know that from watching Religulous. The whacky characters Maher interviews, like the founder of the Kentucky Creation Museum and the former gay man who is now a Christian gay conversion “therapist,” display ignorance of their own faith, extreme and contentious literal interpretations of sacred texts, and an inability to consider theological complexity.
Amen…
Maher’s interviewees disregard basic theological tenets—caring for the poor, refraining from judgement, or working to strengthen the common good. Maher should have talked to Christians volunteering in hurricane disaster sites, students committing nights and weekends to inter-faith dialogue, or congregations supporting the poor during the economic crisis. Faith-based communities and activists have been at the forefront of progressivism, from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dedication to civil rights to the National Association of Evangelical’s commitment to addressing climate change. They have led the nation to frame its domestic and international policy in terms of our moral commitments to equality, alleviating poverty, and sustainable development. Unfortunately, Maher misses the opportunity to make this important point, because he is too married to his own fanatical pursuit—the case against all religion.
Amen…
For whatever reason there seems to be a trend of late,Dawkins,Hitchens,and now Bill Maher of all people,aimed at ridiculing people of faith.
The question being why ?
Because religious zealots are funny?
Religion remains a restricted area where humour is concerned. In my view, it should be no more hands off than any other field of human thought or endeavour.
BTW, have been dying to see the movie but it hasn’t shown up online anywhere.
Well perhaps the problem is we only hear the voices of the fanatics. Maybe the so-called 70% moderates in religion ought to speak up and decry the lunatics in their midst.
When the Anglican Primate of Canada denounces “Dr.” Charles McVety in no uncertain terms, then maybe you will have a point.
When the Catholic Bishops are more concerned with poverty rather than abortion and castigate the Evangelicals for their hate spewing, you’ll have a point.
When members of moderate Muslim and Jewish groups protest outside of a screening of “Expelled” for its blatant lies about science, then you’ll have a point.
Until that 70% grows a spine and tells the lunatics to shut the hell up and make it clear they don’t speak for them, Maher and others will be right.
Because its the only voice we hear when it comes to religion. Maybe he’s delivering the wake up call the moderates need.
Until I hear different, Maher is on the money.
For whatever reason there seems to be a trend of late,Dawkins,Hitchens,and now Bill Maher of all people,aimed at ridiculing people of faith.
The question being why ?
Because it’s all a bunch of ridiculous, made up fairy tales?
You are a religious apologist, not a progressive.
Please. Just stop. Bill Maher, Hitch, Dawkins and most other thinking people don’t care that religious people don’t like what others say about them.
Why is it okay for the religious to start telling people that they’re going to hell?
Mike said…”Well perhaps the problem is we only hear the voices of the fanatics. Maybe the so-called 70% moderates in religion ought to speak up and decry the lunatics in their midst”…
I agree,but is it really fair to hold the majority responsible for the absurd mumblings of a few fanatics.Overall such views are just that views and opinion,action is what counts.
The majority of people of faith do good work as,Sarah Dreier points out in her review.
What do these fanatics do,other than spew outrages opinions which they then attempt to justify by claiming to be Christian,Muslim etc? In fact any comparison of what these fanatics are actually saying/espousing with any religious tradition/teachings,will quickly show they are nonsense and in no way reflect religious faith or people of faith(the majority).
Indeed I could turn your argument around,and blame the majority of Canadians for the state of the government and politics in this country.Despite the fact that we know that the majority did not vote for the Conservatives or their socially conservative values.
Mike said…”Until that 70% grows a spine and tells the lunatics to shut the hell up and make it clear they don’t speak for them, Maher and others will be right.
Because its the only voice we hear when it comes to religion. Maybe he’s delivering the wake up call the moderates need”….
To that I say,perhaps those are the only voices that you and Maher hear,or want to hear.But it still does not reflect the reality,or the fact the most religious people are quite the opposite in their behaviors and actions.
Thickslab said…”Because it’s all a bunch of ridiculous, made up fairy tales?”…
You are missing the point of the review,it not about whether one should interpret the bible etc literally or metaphorically.And that is one argument I will not engage in,what people believe is their business,its what they do in real life that counts.
DLF said…”You are a religious apologist, not a progressive”…
Religious apologist,wtf ?
Do yourself a favor and read the review in full,and pay more attention.
Also ask yourself what of the ‘liberation theology’ movement, that inspired so many in South & central America to raise up and resist.Was that not progressive ?
I’m personally convinced it’s because Dawkins and company literally cannot account for the questions that science cannot answer.
Unable to conjure a compelling or logical reason why these questions — dealing with the meaning and purpose of life, what happens to human consciousness (or souls) after death — they’ve apparently decided it’s easier to engage in “cold-eyed sneering” than try to acknowledge the distinct limitations of science.
Patrick I always appreciate comments…
But again the post is not about defending or not defending,literal interpretations.
You also ended your post with a question as to why Dawkins, Maher and co feel the need to simply ridicule religion.
I gave you an answer.
You asked why they’re ridiculing faith. I answered: because it’s a pile of made up crap. They’re ridiculing it because it’s worthy of nothing more than ridicule. Your thing about literal versus metaphorical interpretation of one particular religious book is irrelevant.
“Unable to conjure a compelling or logical reason why these questions — dealing with the meaning and purpose of life, what happens to human consciousness (or souls) after death — they’ve apparently decided it’s easier to engage in “cold-eyed sneering” than try to acknowledge the distinct limitations of science.”
Ignoring the fact that this sentence makes no sense, I think Dawkins and company would suggest that with regards to questions that science or empiricism cannot answer, the rational thing to do would be to say ‘I don’t know’.
It’s easy for you to dismiss Dawkins because you’ve created a similar false dichotomy to the flawed argument used by creationists. It’s not a matter of ‘science’ or ‘religion’ — we can also have the category of ‘beyond the limits of human understanding’ or something to that effect.
If that sentence doesn’t make any sense to you, you need to enroll yourself in a remedial English class.
What, too many big words for you?
Saying “I don’t know” to these questions is not, in and of itself, an answer to that question: merely an admission of ignorance.
Once again, unanswered, these questions remain.
It’s a fickle science that dismisses anything as simply “beyond the limits of human understanding”. This does not dispel the questions because it does nothing to temper the very natural phenomenon of human curiosity.
Furthermore, the greatest advances in scientific knowledge have always come when scientists embraced the study of phenomena that would otherwise be dismissed as “beyond the limits of human understanding”.
thickslab claims:
“You asked why they’re ridiculing faith. I answered: because it’s a pile of made up crap. They’re ridiculing it because it’s worthy of nothing more than ridicule. Your thing about literal versus metaphorical interpretation of one particular religious book is irrelevant.”
This is what Patrick Ross was talking about, the sneering, arrogant dismissal of anyone who dares to disagree with you. It’s an ugly tendency among both evangelicals and radical atheists like Maher, Dawkins and Hitchens.
You are too busy focussing on whether or not people believe what is decribed in the Bible is what literally happened, that you overlook what people are trying to say here, that the essential message of helping people in need, taking care of the poor and sick, showing forgiveness and mercy, are what really matter to true Christians and progressives, not whether or not God specifically set aside a parcel of land for the Israelites or whether or not Jonah was literally swallowed by a giant whale.
The thing is, Dawkins, Maher, Hitchens and others become evangelical crusaders themselves, determined to preach what they view as the One True Way, and condemning anyone who disagrees with or questions them.
Christian evanglicals and zealots talk about how anyone who disagrees with them will burn in hell, and that only they know the way to salvation.
Dawkins and his followers claim to be brining the light of truth and reason to the masses, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot who believes in fairy tales.
Besides which, if Dawkins, Maher and Hitchens begin dishing it out, they’d better be ready to take it. If they will begin ridiculing religion, people are going to start making fun of atheism, like they did on South Park a few years ago. Care to explain why people of faith can be made fun of, but atheism is sacrosanct?
I loathe the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson-they claim to speak for God, and yet all they do is spew fire and brimstone against those who disagree with them, spending more time condemning people as sinners and damning them to hell, rather than what Christ really called on his followers to do. They’re a lot like the Pharisees, the religious hypocrites Jesus so vigorously condemned for living off the fat of the land and pretending to obey God’s laws, while the poor and the sick were suffering and in need of help.
People like Dawkins and Falwell need each other. They perpetrate a cycle of hate and mistrust, each using the other as a way of building up support. The militant atheists can point to the likes of Fred Phelps and Charles McVety, and use them as a way of condemning religion. Robertson, Falwell and the militant evangelical movement can point to Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher, and use them to “prove” to Christians that their faith is under attack, and that they need to rally to its defense.
Both sides are equally wrong. The true evil is not atheism or religion, it is radicalism. Radicalism and militancy are the true poison, not secularism, Islam or Christianity. Whether it’s in belief vs. atheism, or left wing vs. right wing, both sides are equally capable of arrogance, mistrust, and anger…because of the radical, militant position taken by the extremists on both sides.