Friday, August 8, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

by LA Times Blogs

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/08/bill-maher-hate.html

Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

In Bill Maher's new documentary, "Religulous," the film's protagonist--Maher himself--feels the same way about the film's subject matter at the beginning as at the end: In other words, he thinks religion is a big crock of spit. You know irreverence is the order of the day when Maher, reacting to a smooth-talking black preacher's boast that he got a great deal on his $2,000 suits, drolly observes, "I find it interesting that you're a Christian, you used to be a Muslim but you buy all your clothes like a Jew."

"Religulous" doesn't open until Oct. 3, but after seeing the movie I couldn't wait to grill Maher about how he managed to get so many deeply religious figures to actually talk to him, since it's obvious to anyone whose ever watched Maher's act (on "Politically Incorrect" or HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher" or in a comedy club) that he wasn't much of a believer. In many ways, the film is a comic bookend to Sam Harris' "The End of Faith," a humorless best seller that views religion as a bastion of superstition and moral hypocrisy. Although Maher embraces Harris' belief that religion is a destructive force that has brought great pain and suffering into the world--at one point he calls it a neurological disorder--Maher is always searching for the humor in every situation. A longtime acolyte of George Carlin, when Maher confronts a religious zealot or hustler, he prefers mocking over scolding.

Rolling his eyes, often full of derision, Maher gets in his licks with everyone, from a guy playing Jesus at a Holy Land theme park in Orlando to Muslims at a gay bar in Amsterdam to a rabbi who advocates the dissolution of Israel (he wears a card with the slogan "A Jew Not a Zionist"). As everything from "The Gong Show" to "Borat" has proved, real people and situations are often undeniably funnier than anything scripted by the best comic minds. In Holland, Maher is in the midst of questioning a somber Muslim cleric when he's interrupted by the cleric's cellphone, whose ring tone is Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir."

So how did Maher manage to get all these people to actually talk to him? Since "Religulous" was directed by Larry Charles, who also did "Borat," I suspected that subterfuge and trickery were involved. I was not far wrong. Here's how Maher pulled it off:

On how he got people to talk to him: "It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.' It didn't work everywhere. We went to Salk Lake City, but no one would let us film there at all."

On the element of surprise: "Larry Charles' theory is--just keep going till they throw you out. I guess he learned that on 'Borat.' The crew would set up and at the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they'd be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they'd have to talk to me. It was like--'And now here's ... Bill!' You could usually see the troubled looks on their faces. At the Holy Land theme park, the PR woman freaked out and finally told us to leave. She was definitely not a happy camper."

On his encounter with Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, who tells Maher he believes the biblical account that Earth was created 5,200 years ago: "He's not going to be happy with this movie. I suspect he's going to say that the editing is not favorable to him [laughs]. And he's not completely wrong about that. But we didn't make anything up. When I told him I was worried about people [with such literal interpretations of the Bible] running the country, he's the one who says, 'Well, you don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate.' "

Tomorrow: Bill Maher tells us what he really thinks about religion.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 8, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 99 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #226766 by tybowen on August 8, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Well I cant say I like the fact that they lied to get interviews and used a fake movie name. Seems too much like how expelled was produced. Its just dishonest. Lying for Atheism is no better than Lying for Jesus. At least he was honest when he actually interviewed people though. But who knows what sort of editing tricks will be used.

Other Comments by tybowen

2. Comment #226770 by Janus on August 8, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Well I cant say I like the fact that they lied to get interviews and used a fake movie name. Seems too much like how expelled was produced. Its just dishonest. Lying for Atheism is no better than Lying for Jesus.

It depends what you mean by "lying for atheism". Atheism isn't a cause, but exposing foolishness and hypocrisy is. Even on websites such as this one we often forget the truth about religion: It's a bunch of lies. It's propagated by priests lying to their flock, by believers lying to each other, and most of all, by people lying to themselves.

Is it morally wrong to use underhanded methods in order to reveal a lie for what it is? I don't think so.

Other Comments by Janus

3. Comment #226771 by thewhitepearl on August 8, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Lying for Atheism

[WHACKSMACK]

No comment should be needed on what prompted the cricket bat that time.

[edit]

Janus,

No it doesn't matter what was meant by the comment "lying for atheism". There is no such thing.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

4. Comment #226779 by Apathy personified on August 8, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I haven't seen expelled, but i thought they also edited the interviews? like adding long pauses to pretend RD didn't have an answer and things of that nature - Or was that something entirely different?

Let us also remember the clear distinction here, expelled set out to lie and attack the reputation of many scientists - Religulous is a comedy film that seems to be having a go at people who take myths seriously.

Having said that, should he have told them the truth to start with? Probably - Would any of them agreed to do it? Doubt it

Other Comments by Apathy personified

5. Comment #226789 by Janus on August 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm

So it's ok to use deceptive methods because we're convinced that we're right? I'm sorry, but how does that make us better than the makers of expelled? We give them hell when they do it but suddenly it's ok because our purpose is to expose their hypocrisy and foolishness? I bet the makers of expelled used a very similar justification

I'm sure they did. So what's the difference between us and them?

You might as well ask something like, "What's the difference between someone who killed a man because he sincerely believed that it was God's will, and someone who killed a man because he/she came across solid empirical evidence that this man was about to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York?

Well, the difference is that while both people sincerely believe they are right, only the second person really is right. The difference is that the first person's beliefs are based on wishful thinking, while the second person's beliefs are based on evidence.

The same is true in this particular case. The Expelled team's actions are morally wrong because they are factually wrong, and Bill Maher's actions are morally right because he is factually right.

As for these tactics reflecting poorly on atheists, well, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. This movie wouldn't have been possible if Maher had been completely forthright.

Other Comments by Janus

6. Comment #226794 by croatcat on August 8, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I see no problem with Maher's tactics to get the interviews. These believers who are so cock-sure about their beliefs should be able to talk about them, period, no matter who is asking the questions. And if they are afraid of being made fun of, maybe they should rethink their stance.

I say-no quarter. The lunacy should continue to be exposed.

Other Comments by croatcat

7. Comment #226796 by thewhitepearl on August 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm

but how does that make us better than the makers of expelled?

Us? who is this us you are referring to? Did you help make the movie?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

8. Comment #226798 by macros_man on August 8, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Given that this movie is suppose to be a COMEDY - I don't have a big problem problem with Bill using deception to get the content for his film.

However - to be fair and honest and "take the high road", I think that after the release, the movie's creators should provide the FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEWS freely available on the internet - and even post a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie indicating that some editing and deception took place.

Doing this will likely do little to diminish the power of the content - since I'm sure he's got stuff that can stand its ground in _any_ context (such as the senators comments about IQ tests).

Expelled, on the other hand, was not a comedy, but was intended to put forth a convincing argument - and its purpose rested on the truthfulness of its claims and its content. So to use deception and editing to prove their point in that context is considerably worse than what Bill Maher is doing.

Other Comments by macros_man

9. Comment #226804 by Laurie Fraser on August 8, 2008 at 5:37 pm

There is a deep conceptual gulf between "Lying for Jesus" and "exposing stupidity". It is perfectly OK for Maher to use deception in order to expose religious bullshit, which, after all, is a far more sinister and systematic practice of deception.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

10. Comment #226806 by maxamillion on August 8, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I haven't seen expelled, but i thought they also edited the interviews? like adding long pauses to pretend RD didn't have an answer and things of that nature - Or was that something entirely different?

something entirely different

Other Comments by maxamillion

11. Comment #226808 by kkelly on August 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm

It was unethical. The "victims" are probably going to feel embarrassment and regret. His intention was to deceive and ridicule them for his own vainglory, and a few lesser reasons. Anyway, I fully approve.

Other Comments by kkelly

12. Comment #226810 by Apathy personified on August 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Thanks Maxamillion - i've seen so many clips of interviews that some of them seem to melt into one.

Good morning Laurie, btw.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

13. Comment #226813 by Laurie Fraser on August 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Morning, Apathy

kkelly - how can you approve if you believe it to be unethical? I suspect you don't.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

14. Comment #226816 by kkelly on August 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm

20, Well I can look the other way.

Other Comments by kkelly

15. Comment #226817 by thewhitepearl on August 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm

There is a deep conceptual gulf between "Lying for Jesus" and "exposing stupidity

[highfive]

Morning Laurie!

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

16. Comment #226820 by Laurie Fraser on August 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Hi wp - check the other thread.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

17. Comment #226831 by Paine on August 8, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I dont see why everyone is cribbing about Maher lying to the interviewees. It's a bloody comedy and is marketed as such!!
Expelled buggers call themselves a DOCUMENTARY. Huge difference. And I bet you'll never hear of Maher throwing people out of screenings who appeared in the movie.

Other Comments by Paine

18. Comment #226835 by tybowen on August 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm

No it doesn't matter what was meant by the comment "lying for atheism". There is no such thing.

Sorry, I was just trying to make the metaphor stronger by using similar wording. And as there really is no such thing as Jesus or God you could say there is no such thing as lying for jesus. Its still lying for your purposes.
And as it sounds like they made the interviewees sign a consent form before filming since Maher (I think it was him) said "So either they'd be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they'd have to talk to me". Sounds a little bit pressured to me. Then the interviewees would have had no say into how their image would be used, rather then just having to think up new material on the spot after being startled and upset and hope that their hasty arguments couldn't be used too much out of context.

Other Comments by tybowen

19. Comment #226836 by kkelly on August 8, 2008 at 6:42 pm

26, It doesn't matter that it's a comedy, what matters is that the individuals will feel anguish, albeit mild, at having been deceived and publicly mocked.

Other Comments by kkelly

20. Comment #226842 by thewhitepearl on August 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Sorry, I was just trying to make the metaphor stronger by using similar wording

It's all good in the hood mate! As long as you have learned from the error of your ways.

Now allow me to get you an ice pack and asprin for the injury to your head.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

21. Comment #226844 by Laurie Fraser on August 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm

It doesn't matter that it's a comedy, what matters is that the individuals will feel anguish, albeit mild, at having been deceived and publicly mocked.

Good. They deserve it, considering the far more permanent and severe anguish they cause others.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

22. Comment #226846 by steveroot on August 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm

"Gay, Muslim activists; that is a very rare job description. You guys have big ones."

ROFLMFAO!
Where does he find these people? They must realize there is something not-quite-"kosher" about the interviews, yet they proceed... "the (proselytistic) force is strong with this one."

I wonder if Ben Stein will be allowed in...
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

23. Comment #226850 by Pony on August 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Let us be clear here: They will be being mocked for their actual, stated beliefs. Nothing needs to be taken out of context here.

Other Comments by Pony

24. Comment #226851 by rod-the-farmer on August 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I think I read two instances of less than full veracity here. One was the name of the film - which could have meant almost anything. The second was to hide from the interviewee, just who would be doing the interview. I don't see that as an ethical issue. Ya think someone will give different answers to the same question, depending on who is asking ? They would then be a poor subject. Count me among those will watch for it at my local theatres.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

25. Comment #226856 by kkelly on August 8, 2008 at 7:09 pm

34, But they likely didn't know that the film was going to be a mainstream blockbuster whose purpose was to make them look stupid. For 'Borat', the producers told the subjects that the film was only going to be shown in Kazakstan (however the fuck you spell it), so obviously the subjects would never have agreed to be interviewed if they knew better, or would have watched what they said. As a result, many of them were humiliated in their own communities.

I don't care if the college students who (probably jokingly) lamented the emancipation proclamation actually are racist, their right to privacy was invaded through deception.

Other Comments by kkelly

26. Comment #226873 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Bonzai:

So, is "Borat" ethical?

Damnit! Beaten :)

I was about to say shouldn't we heap scorn on Borat for not being forthright with the subjects of their interviews as to what actually was going on? Of course not. This, like Borat, is social satire...it's comedy. Since it is comedy, it would be impossible (or nearly impossible) for it to work if the subjects of the interviews knew what was really going on. It is not trying to sell or market itself as an impartial documentary that is ostensibly explaining facts.

My only hope is that there is some kind of naked wrestling scene with Bill Maher and a rabbi. Oh wait...no I really don't hope that.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

27. Comment #226875 by chuckgoecke on August 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Borat was hilarious because of how it pointed out how easily the incredibly ethnocentric condescending Americans could be used by this brilliant guy. Luckily, not all Americans are this bad, but sadly many are, and he probably didn't have to cut many bits out where his gag didn't fly.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

28. Comment #226876 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Is it morally wrong to use underhanded methods in order to reveal a lie for what it is?

Yes.

Do we get to lie because they lied first, and their lie was bigger?

If so why don't we go on an atheist crusade killing theists. As long as we don't kill quite as many as they did in their crusade it'd be excusable right?

Utterly shameful.

Religious people should not get any special rights or privileges based on their beliefs. They should not get to opt out of some work requirements, or get tax exemptions. Nor should they, however, be robbed of other rights.

If we see theists as beneath us and undeserving of the same respect any other person should get we have stooped to the level of what I wish to fight.

We don't need to respect their ideas, their religion, their ceremonies; but we do need to respect them as people.

Other Comments by J Mac

29. Comment #226880 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:19 pm

J Mac:

Religulous is a comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such. It's not trying to market itself as a fact-based documentary like certain other recent movies that I will not give the dignity of naming. Also, the producers of Religulous (as others have already mentioned) do not appear to have lied to their interviewees about what was going on once the interview began. The interviewees in Religulous could easily have left as soon as they found out what was going on (once Bill Maher showed up), but most of them chose not to do so.

The producers of that *other* movie never told its interviewees about what was happening before, during, or after their interview. In fact, the producers outright lied the whole time and told them exactly the opposite of what they intended to do, under the guise that they were participating in a factual scientific documentary. They then edited the interviews to make the subjects of those interviews appear to be saying things they actually did not say or mean.

Comedic Social Satire != Factual Documentary. They can't be held to the same standard of integrity for obvious reasons.

That's the distinction I see here.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

30. Comment #226883 by Ohnhai on August 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Using a working title in pre-prod is perfectly normal, as is not having to hand the name of the interviewer.. Fair play in my book.

After all if Ben Stein can do it, why not Bill?

After Expelled, Fair game I say

Other Comments by Ohnhai

31. Comment #226884 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Comedic Social Satire != Genuine Documentary - They can't be held to the same standard of integrity for obvious reasons.

That's the distinction I see here.

I do absolutely agree. Even aside from the bias I have from being an atheist what was done with the 'other' movie was far worse than this.

My point however is that we cannot justify immoral behavior simple because it is not AS immoral as what "they did."

And EVEN IF we could justify such retaliatory action we should only retaliate at those who made Expelled.

Other Comments by J Mac

32. Comment #226885 by Quine on August 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Comment #226798 by macros_man:

However - to be fair and honest and "take the high road", I think that after the release, the movie's creators should provide the FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEWS freely available on the internet - and even post a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie indicating that some editing and deception took place

Good idea.

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #226887 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 8:45 pm

I have been pleasantly surprised time and time again by the intellect and rationality displayed in this group. However much of this thread is disturbing. The rampant "They started it" excuse for inappropriate behavior is something that I would expect to see out of my four year old niece. Truly though she has grown beyond such things.

Other Comments by J Mac

34. Comment #226889 by Paine on August 8, 2008 at 8:48 pm

It doesn't matter what they told them before the interview. like I said, it's a comedy. Nobody forced to say the stuff they said.
If expelled was marketed as a joke, I would be fine with it. It wasnt while Maher has no problem saying what he does.
The real problem with Ben Stein was that he sold his movie as honest while using dishonest tricks. Maher is candid about the tricks he used. If stein said, I weaselled my way into Dawkins' presence just to get him to say stuff that he might not like, I would be fine. The day he does that, we can have a discussion about Maher vs expelled.

Other Comments by Paine

35. Comment #226891 by robotaholic on August 8, 2008 at 8:52 pm

As stupid as this sounds, I want to tell you all how mature you sound for even considering the possible hypocrisy of lying to get this movie made in comparison to Expelled - you're all morally superior to christians - and I have yet to hear an objection from a christian for the deceptive tactics of the producers of Expelled-

If the makers of Expelled followed their own christian rules they wouldn't have put Dawkins & Myers interviews out of context nor lied to get the interviews in the first place.

At least Atheists dont tout their moral superiority hypocritically like christians do-

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #226892 by Laurie Fraser on August 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Comment #226887 by J Mac

I don't (and I'm sure most posters feel the same) actually think of it in the way you're suggesting, JMac. I don't give a shit that Expelled used deceptive methods and underhand editing. That's what these people do - right from the days of Henry Morris and the egregious Duane Gish: distort, misrepresent, tell deliberate lies, take things out of context, etc etc.

The point is: what's your purpose? If the purpose is to make a documentary, then, for veracity, you need to be particularly careful that your sources are presented accurately and within context. A documentary is like an academic paper; it is free to criticise, but needs to do this within the context of agreed principles, including the principle of fairness.

A film which is satire/comedy, on the other hand, has no such restraints. ridicule IS the weapon of the satirist, and so long as the viewer is aware of the context (and if he's not, then he needs education), there is no harm done, except to the egos of those who demonstrate their own stupidity/incompetence.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

37. Comment #226894 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Again, all I can say is:

Religulous: Comedic social satire that is marketing itself as such.

There is nothing you can do in such a movie that is "immoral" (well...as long as it is legal). It is a comedy. One of the ways you make comedy is by putting people in awkward or unexpected situations, and then observing their reactions.

If you think it's funny, laugh. If you don't, don't go see it.

I think many of the moral comparisons going on in this thread between this movie, and the "other" movie, are themselves "religulous" ;)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

38. Comment #226895 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Perhaps I am being to harsh on this film. As I know little of the details I cannot conclude whether the filmmakers' actions were appropriate or not.

What I am against however is a perception of several previous posts that it WOULD be ok to behave unethically as long as we were not as unethical as the other guy was.

As far as the distinction of comedy and documentary I completely agree. But interviewees were intentionally misled regarding the purpose of the film. It sounds like they were not informed that it was a comedy until they were on camera with Maher. I doubt they were even told then, but I presume at that point it would be obvious.

Its a bait and switch. Just because the customer can know about the switch before paying the money does not mean the sellers technique is less fraudulent. Just because the interviewees learn that it is a comedy before they have to say anything on camera does not make the lure less fraudulent.

Other Comments by J Mac

39. Comment #226900 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Its a bait and switch. Just because the customer can know about the switch before paying the money does not mean the sellers technique is less fraudulent. Just because the interviewees learn that it is a comedy before they have to say anything on camera does not make the lure less fraudulent.

By this logic, Borat, and any number of other social satires that set people up under (initially) false pretenses in order to make fun of them, are also fraudulent. This includes many (if not most) "reality" TV shows. You may have a point here.

Does that make it immoral? Probably not. It seems to have become a social norm in most western cultures.

Does that make it any less funny? No.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

40. Comment #226906 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm

I've never seen Borat... Sometimes I feel like I live in a cave. I've heard if him (that is the guys name isn't it, or is it the name of the film?)

I also don't watch reality shows, but the I know of some that are on doesn't involve anyone being lured onto the show under false pretenses. There may be many such examples that I am unaware of, but to clarify my position if such examples exist I would find them inappropriate as well.

As far as whether its funny, I don't see how that question is relevant to the issue of the ethics behind it. I doubt you would suggest that success at being funny could excuse unethical practices in the making of the film. Whether or not the practices are ethical is debatable (obviously, as thats what we are doing) but this distinction is entirely independent from whether or not the film is funny.

Other Comments by J Mac

41. Comment #226909 by root2squared on August 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

We don't need to respect their ideas, their religion, their ceremonies; but we do need to respect them as people.

Why? Respect is something that is earned...it is not automatic. Tolerance...yes.Respect...no. After all, the respect you accord a person is based on that person's morals, integrity, intelligence, and character. More the person lacking in these, the lesser respect they deserve.

Other Comments by root2squared

42. Comment #226910 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I've never seen Borat... Sometimes I feel like I live in a cave. I've heard if him (that is the guys name isn't it, or is it the name of the film?)

Actually you are right on both counts. Borat is the name of the character, and Borat is the name of the movie. Although the full name of the movie is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

The character of Borat was created and is portrayed by a pretty well-known English comedian/actor named Sacha Baron Cohen.

Religulous is being made by the director of Borat (Larry Charles).

I suspect that the same (or similar) methods were used in Religulous that were used in Borat in order to obtain interviews and to enhance the comedic value of the movie. This is because they are trying to make an entertaining and successful SATIRICAL COMEDY film (with perhaps some social value...as most good satires have), and not a factual documentary.

I believe Borat did very well critically and at the box office. I suggest you rent it :)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

43. Comment #226922 by Don_Quix on August 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Mainly, the subjects of the Borat interviews were upset because (some of them claim) they didn't initially realize they were part of a satirical comedy film, and they were upset/offended because they were being made fun of (after the fact). Some of them also claim they wouldn't have participated if they had known otherwise. Coincidentally all this only started happening after Borat made a huge amount of money at the box office. :o Go figure.

But, the movie wouldn't have been as funny (or even possible) if they had known what was happening. All of them signed legitimate release forms. Therefore if they had a legitimate claim then they could have legitimately sued and won...and they didn't (have a claim or win). So fuck them.

See the link for details (scroll down to the "Controversies" part - I can never get links to work right here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat:_Cultural_Learnings_of_America_for_Make_Benefit_Glorious_Nation_of_Kazakhstan#Controversies

Other Comments by Don_Quix

44. Comment #226927 by Steve Zara on August 9, 2008 at 12:17 am

The same is true in this particular case. The Expelled team's actions are morally wrong because they are factually wrong, and Bill Maher's actions are morally right because he is factually right

I don't see a problem with mild deception in order to expose people and find out their views. That is part of the way that investigative journalism works. The problem is if people's views are misrepresented, but that is a different matter.

What I do have a major problem with is statements like the above. For one thing, part of scientific rationalism is realising that there are few certainties. All we can do is believe we are probably right.

Also, if we use the above argument, we have to accept that others may justify their actions against us using precisely the same words.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #226964 by Vaal on August 9, 2008 at 2:14 am

Totally agree Laurie. I like this Borat style, it brings out the sheer lunacy of the religious nutters core beliefs, and it catches them saying what they actually believe, rather than the often sanitised version they try to demonstrate when they know they are being interviewed by the media, and don't want to come across as ridiculous as they really are.

The more satire the better. Religion should be ridiculed as it IS ridiculous, and the proponents of the religion actually do the best job of showing it up for the absurdity it is.

Other Comments by Vaal

46. Comment #226976 by J Mac on August 9, 2008 at 4:57 am

Why? Respect is something that is earned...it is not automatic. Tolerance...yes.Respect...no. After all, the respect you accord a person is based on that person's morals, integrity, intelligence, and character. More the person lacking in these, the lesser respect they deserve.

"Respect" can have different meanings, and it seems we are using different meanings, as I agree with your sentiment. However everyone has basic human rights regardless of their beliefs.

I also agree with some statements above that nothing ILLEGAL was done; but if the legal system is one's only code of ethics our world is indeed in trouble.

Other Comments by J Mac

47. Comment #226978 by AllanW on August 9, 2008 at 5:19 am

I have some sympathy for your points, isaone, but they are tempered by the wildly divergent and inaccurate flicks of snark in your second paragraph and the penultimate one. 'Gee, where do I sign up to be a member of the Master Race?' is plainly innaccurate unless you believe (leaving the Nazi allusions to one side) that members of this site are looking to forcibly create a new kind of society. Likewise your reference to the Trolls is misplaced; I don't see anyone here or associated with this film conducting the same kind of activities.

Lighten up a little; this film differs from Expelled only in the manner of its presentation. It is meant to be a comedy not a documentary but other than that it uses pretty much the same methods and should be criticised for that. I don't have a problem with that fact but I'll not put any more support behind it because it aligns with my views rather than not; its an entertainment.

Other Comments by AllanW

48. Comment #226980 by J Mac on August 9, 2008 at 5:37 am

People here do have a diverse array of views on the techniques used, which is good. We can hear each others points and learn from them.

I have learned that my gut reaction to the film's techniques was an overreaction; however that doesn't mean I don't still see some problem with it.

Additionally, some members in this thread opposed to the usage of "we" in referring to atheists as a group; whether that opposition was in jest or serious that sentiment that atheists are not a group is common, and I propose that it is problematic.

We, yes we, do not need to agree on many issues to be a group. But I would like to work to have non religious people accepted and incorporated into society; this is a goal that I suspect and hope is shared by many others here. To achieve that goal we must work as a group (of sorts). And just like any other minority group it will be only minimally effective if we hold ourselves to the same standards as theists, we must go beyond that and work toward a higher standard.

Is this right? Is this fair? No. But neither were the feats that had to be accomplished for other minorities to be accepted into society. Watch the movie "Men of Honor," it is a great movie. Did Cuba's character just have to show that he was as good of a diver as the white divers? No, he had to prove he was much better, he had to excel far beyond expectations. This is not fair, it is not just, but it is the way the world works. No amount of wishful thinking will get atheism accepted in society; hard work and maintaining high standards for ourselves will.

Other Comments by J Mac

49. Comment #226984 by Raiko on August 9, 2008 at 6:03 am

I would have cheered for Maher for making this movie, if he had gotten his interviews this way to mock Expelled. But he seems to have had other motivations, so I can only disagree with his approach.

Other Comments by Raiko

50. Comment #226986 by Hellene on August 9, 2008 at 6:10 am

Howdy folks.

Just a few thoughts.

The ambush interview is here to stay.

So keep on your toes.

Deception is part of natures' "strategy".

Religulous...... is not a very good title.

Bill Mahr was "honest" in that he deceived. He admits it. Expelled pretended they didn't even after the facts came out.

Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Myers (peace be upon them) where tricked.
It happens apparently even to the brightest minds.

So remember boys and girls.... you don't have to buy the undercoat with the new car... Just because someone puts a camera in your face dose not mean you have to speak.

Other Comments by Hellene