Premier of Bill Maher's new movie Religulous

I recently attended the premier of Bill Maher's new movie at the Traverse City Film Festival. This movie is a must-see for anyone interested in a rare investigation into contemporary Religion.

"If we were taught as children that the story of Jack in the Beanstalk was the word of God, and that the story of Jonah living in the belly of a great fish was a fable, would we be as willing to kill in the defense of Jack and his beanstalk"

Good question.

I have long believed that religion brings very little of objective value to the world, and this movie represents a long overdue rational examination in the world of religion by the more emotionally stable and peaceful populace.

During a panel discussion with Michael Moore and director Larry Charles, Mr Charles said that he was attempting to use humor as permission to discuss a taboo subject. He continued by saying the religious belief that freedom of speech includes the right to not ever be offended by differing opinions is a false one. Hallelujah and Amen !

Later in the festival, I attended the screening of Madonna's new documentary "I am because we are" Madonna was very generous and much different than her tabloid persona. Her movie contains disturbing evidence of yet another country that is being destroyed by "Tradition and Religion" The HIV epidemic has created 1 million orphans within a 12 million population,and yet the open discussion about sex, birth control, and HIV is Taboo. Meanwhile, the village chief must have sex three times in one day with every mother who has a child who has died in a "cleansing ceremony". The reality of a 9 year old HIV infected girl raising three other younger orphans is preferred to the option of questioning the real impact of religious belief in their society.

Another causality of the rational to those who hear voices and talk to imaginary friends is shown in the movie "Baghdad High" One of the students who made the movie sent a message to his friends who still suffer from our efforts in Iraq via youtube. They have no understanding of how their home movies have been received by the outside world. They have never seen it.

see his unplanned(spontaneous result of a suggestion from the audience) message to his suffering friends here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNstH5WANxQ

I am in the front row in the balcony.

Watch Michael Moore's new book which will be released in several days, and Madonna announced that she is coming to detroit.

I am off to 3 more premiers today.

and whatever else

I saw a hilarious new movie called Hamlet 2. The head of Focus films (Paramount) said he just paid 10 million dollars for it. It is about a high school drama teacher who rewrites the ending to Shakespeare's play by using a time machine. One hot scene (including a great tune) was called "Rock me sexy Jesus". The point was that the star wanted to forgive his father for childhood abuse, and while playing Jesus, forgave his "father". After the "Sexy Jesus" song, Jesus got back into the time machine and said, "when my dad finds out what I have been doing, he will crucify me" and then he pulls the lever on the machine.

Elisabeth Shoe also plays a starring role in the film. The film exec (sorry, I forgot his name) said it was the first time it was played before a paying audience. The producer corrected him by saying "I thought you were the first paying audience".

Another one I saw today was called "Encounters at the end of the world" It is a documentary about a scientist who goes to the south pole for research and all the interesting and diverse life forms he encounters. Among those are the strange collection of fellow scientists who somehow "fell" to the bottom of the earth. One brilliant female regales the audience with odd stories like traveling across South America in a sewer pipe, or crossing Africa in the back of a garbage truck.

One researcher had been studying penguins for so long that he found it difficult to communicate because he did it so rarely. They discussed a penguin who got "confused" and walked toward the center of the continent instead of either back to his pack, or to the sea. It seemed reasonable to assume that the interviewer was trying to gently remind his colleague of the similarities between himself and his work. The closing of that particular scene showed the penguin, now 80 km away from where he should have been walking right past other scientists on his journey the wrong way. The rules governing penguins, he said, were that humans were to stand absolutely still to allow the animals to walk by without influence. He was headed for, the commentary said, certain death.

The photography was stunning. Especially the scenes filmed under the south pole. They cut through 8 foot thick ice to scuba under the ice shelf.

and visit water gardens around the world (there is a great one in the Wash. D.C. area)

The website is traversecityfilmfestival.org Next years festival will be at the same time beginning on Tuesday and ending on Sunday August 2nd.

Michael Moore founded the festival, so he is always around and very accessible. He attracts some pretty interesting films and characters; especially if you are liberal. Most of the audience is liberal, and therefore everyone is nice and very easy to talk to.

They show movies at 6 places, and have a free bus that runs in between each venue. It is very easy to bicycle all over the city. Traverse City is beautiful and just the right size.

Please check it out and consider coming. It is really a great time, and I am sure that everyone would love to have you.

I stood in line with someone from West Bloomfield who was real tall. Somewhere around 6'6" or larger. He had blond hair, in his 30's and said ..
"be sure to watch for me on the 16th green at the PGA championships. I am the referee. I am sure he will be hard to miss.

so ... check it out. It is not just the cost of doing it (cheap actually only $9 per ticket typically) to consider, it is also the cost of not doing it.

Great post, thanks for the report and the link!

I saw War Inc. the other night, it was quite good.

Cheers,
Julie

Yes, I heard that was a good one too. I did not get to see it. I wanted to see Phil Donahue's new movie also, but I could not get in.

I did see Phil on the panel the next morning with Michael Moore, the director of "sympathy for the lobster" and Stanley Dohnen the director of classic movies like "Singing in the Rain"

That panel turned into a very interesting discussion about the politics of censorship, and Stanley recalled his experiences in the 50's when Hollywood was attacked by Nixon and McCarthy. The Record Eagle (record-eagle.com) wrote a story about it and the headline said something like "Panel Discussion turns Anti-War"

Other favorite fun films were Kenny (hilarious), Anvil, especially when they played a concert after the film, Baghdad High (be sure to check out the link in the origional post), Trouble the Water which was about home movies made by a couple who could not afford to leave the storm and were stranded, and an older movie called "song sung blue".

Another interesting tidbit was when the guy from "Wherethehellismatt.com" showed up and did his silly dance on the stage after playing his 4 minute film where the same thing around the world. Did I tell you that Madonna put his hand on Marc Ryans (of all people) shoulder as she walked past him when leaving the movie?

In all, Kathie and I got to 14 events this year, and we had a great time.

Now Julie, I must confess my sins to you ..... my bicycle careened out of control for no apparent reason, and plowed into no less than five Matt Schitt yard signs over the weekend. It was an accident .... honest.

=:>) like my new hairdo?

Great report.

I love the WherethehellisMatt video! Sorry I missed the dance in person. :-) Soory to hear of your unfortunate lawnsign accidents. haha You crack me up.

Cheers,
Julie

It's true that nearly half of US homicides involve an argument, but those arguments typically aren't about religion: they're about sex or drugs -- or something trivial



Some info at: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

While I cannot offer a link to prove an actual event where someone is killed in a dispute concerning the Jonah fable, I would have to reason that those most likely to kill over biblical interpretations would be the fundamentalists who defend their literal belief in the text. The religious have killed for more reasons than can be listed. Far more than the number of stories in the bible. Statistically, it would likely be a near certainty that somewhere, someone was killed in an argument over some stupid detail like was it a whale, or a great fish. There are centuries of evidence to confirm this behavior.

In a larger sense, and possibly a metaphorical one, (remember the parables?) Maher's point is clear and absolutely true.

Expect lots of religious opposition to this film.

On a purely numerical basis, then, the number of persons killed in the course of (the three hundred years of) the Spanish Inquisition is roughly comparable to the number of US soldiers killed in the current Iraq war, or to the total number of lynching victims in the US between the Gilded Age and the era of Vietnam protests,



or to the number of people currently murdered each year in the US by a friend or acquaintance (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm )

The Spanish Inquisition is a very small atrocity, compared to the inhumane horrors of the 20th century (the Douaumont ossuary contains the bones of about 130K of the 230K soldiers who died at Verdun in 1916, 2 million people were gassed at Auschwitz, the Hiroshima atomic bomb claimed 70K lives immediately, at least 500K civilians died in the Vietnam war, the Guatemalan civil war claimed 200K lives, and so on)

Nor is it clear that the executions (carried out by secular authority) were always motivated by purely religious considerations, though (of course) religious deviance officially "justified" the state's killings: the possibility, that the authorities could grab the property of the condemned, provided the state with a material motive for carrying out the executions

Religion is a very subjective and fluid topic. Most of what people of faith believe is not necessarily printed in their texts.
For example, most American Christians probably believe that the light will turn on when they flip a light switch, or believe that their car will start after turning the ignition key. It is obvious that there would be little direct basis for these beliefs coming from a text that has not been updated since the Bronze Age. Religious people seem to be self identifying. They are because they say they are. There are few beliefs, actions, or criteria that can be used to classify a person as a (for example) Christian.

Most Christians would more accurately be called "Paulists" than "Christians" as more contemporary belief tends to be focused on the teachings of Paul rather than the scarce handful attributed to the Christ.

In this regard, it should be noted that institutions like slavery were more widely accepted within the boundaries of the "bible belt" than other places. Radical groups like the KKK flourish in the bible belt as well. Most Klansman are considered to be good God fearing fundamentalist Christians. I would agree that it is difficult to attribute a specific act of violence with a group that is so difficult to define.

I am curious though. Do you offer your thoughts as a defense or argument that "Christians are somehow misunderstood?" and people like the holy reverend Phelps, or bigots like Farwell, Dobson, and Robertson somehow do not count?

There is no shortage of horror stories. An effort, to unravel such a story meaningfully, will reveal a complex of motives: individuals are affected by their instincts (greed? lust?), by misinformation (propaganda?), careless thinking (superstition?), the views of their neighbors (historical myths? prejudices?) &c&c

The point of my prior post has nothing to do with justifying the Inquisition or portraying it's authors as misunderstood. It occurred in a different time, and the mindset then is hard to understand

But I consider it intellectually dishonest, in the 21st century, to look back to the 15th or 16th century and express shock about the abuses of that time, while overlooking much larger and much more recent abuses, especially when the motive seems to be a purely ideological attack on "religion." WWI, for example, claimed millions of lives: it was not caused by "religion" but was the inevitable result (predicted several years in advance) of an arms race between the European powers

To learn from human history, it is important to abstract from the facts, rather than to try to fit the facts to a pre-chosen abstraction. A vague category such as "religion," which has many possible meanings, is unlikely to the the starting point of a coherent historical theory

Dobson and Robertson, like the late Falwell, are (in my view) motivated by a desire to construct a political power base for themselves. Of course, nothing prevents someone from using religious language in the search for such self-serving ends -- one expects it, since (no less than unreligious persons) sincerely religious people are subject to instincts, misinformation, careless thinking, &c&c. If, however, one decides it is important to fight back against such groups, then one should investigate their funding, organization, tactics, and so on -- a vague ideological assault on "religion" simply won't succeed

quote:

"To learn from human history, it is important to abstract from the facts, rather than to try to fit the facts to a pre-chosen abstraction. A vague category such as "religion," which has many possible meanings, is unlikely to the the starting point of a coherent historical theory"

Yes, well put. I have always felt that this dynamic is the exact flaw in religious studies. Religious text is most often type which is read from a pre-chosen abstraction. We believe that the man taking his son to the mountain for the purpose of building an alter and sacrificing him upon it, is holy before considering his actions rationally. Therefore, we look for reasons (often incoherent ones) which explain why he fits into our notion of holiness in spite of obvious exclusions.

If this simple example were written about in the newspaper today, he would not be determined to be holy. He would be considered mentally ill and deserving of arrest by believers and atheists alike. Why is this critical thinking skill impotent when used to measure biblical stories? I maintain it is for the exact reason you describe so well.

This dynamic is the enemy of all human progress and is well symbolized in the "battle" between science and religion. The argument (for example only) that evolution is just a theory is never applied to religious beliefs. Gravity is also a theory, but this theory can be used to reliably calculate (or predict) a future result. Absolutely everything concerning religion is a subjective theory, and virtually none of it can be used in a predictive model. It is the attack upon reasoning, as dobson says, "children should be taught what to think and not how to think" that cannot be eradicated because it stands as the only proof which supports all religious theory. You are holy if you simply believe, and a blasphemer if you question.

I do agree with your argument but would also argue that this "accept by faith alone" in spite of contradictory evidence rational, is the common thread which explains blind religious support for political motives, which results in many of the more atrocious of human crimes. This reasoning method is defended most often by self identifying members of the religious community.

When T=0 was it pure consciousness (God) which came first and somehow, beyond our comprehension, consciousness created matter? Or, was it matter which came first and somehow, beyond our comprehension, the systematic effect of random combinations of matter somehow created life and life somehow created matter?

Answering this fundamental question lies at the feet of both science and religion. The battle is over which evidence will be accepted as proof, and the reasoning format which will be used to deduce deeper understandings. Shall we accept by faith alone, or shall we be brave enough to reason correctly with the faculties that God so graciously gave to humans?

One must be brave to choose one, and merely be a "good boy" to choose the other.

This is what Maher's movie spoke to me. Why is the examination of religious thought and the reasoning practices most often employed a taboo subject? There is a kinship between this and many of the secular atrocities that you mention.