"Religulous"

I don't normally review movies because, well, I don't like my writing enough (nor am I particularly good at expressing opinions). But I couldn't pass up the opportunity, especially with the controversy surrounding this documentary...
--

Let me state this right out: I'm not much of a fan of Bill Maher's style of discourse. I never really found him to allow for real debate on "Politically Incorrect," and even in his latest documentary Religulous, I find his style to be overly biased and at times sarcastic. I have never believed that the point of a documentary was to promote one's personal views, but rather to objectively bring light to a problem or to raise an issue for your thought. Flat out, don't like it. Reminds me of Michael Moore, who I think we can all agree (if we are free thinkers) is not a real documentarian.

But the point of this documentary, its true value (as I find it) is not in its message, which comes through quite strongly, but at the dialogue it (seeks to) inspire. Now, I'm religious, a pretty committed Christian. But, like many religious individuals, I have had moments of extreme doubt and abandonment when it came to my religion, my God, my faith, and, most of all, the Bible. Bill Maher is basically, in Religulous, chronicaling his own decision to explore religion, to humbly examine its beliefs from the perspective of a non-believer trying to grasp at why people believe.

There is, however, a curse in this world, a dark storm brewing its behemoth might and threatening to tear humanity and the planet apart. It is called, organized religion. Yes, I said it, organized religion is the bane of human existence; if we ever collapse as a civilization it will be the doing solely of our attachment to the religious leaders that direct our will. Through a journey that takes him from the streets of LA to Salt Lake City, Orlando, the Bible Belt and ultimately to Amsterdam and Jerusalem, Maher explores a number of organized religions and their leaders, questioning their attachment to what he views to be almost insane beliefs. What he finds, however, is perhaps not that the messages are necessarily wrong, but that it is the ever-flawed human element behind them that threatens to destroy everything humanity has worked to create since the Enlightenment.

Beginning, as it were, with the story of his own experience with religion as the son of a devoutly Catholic father and a Jewish mother who attended Catholic school until age 13, Maher suggests that what many of us find in religion has to do with our insecurities and our fallibilities. In a particularly poignant--albeit hilarious--interview with his mother and sister, Maher tries to find out why it was one day that his father suddenly quit the Catholic church when he was 13, and why religion no longer became an important issue in their household (it seems the church's condemnation of birth control did the trick). He then explores Christian fundamentalism in America, and many of its leaders prove themselves simply unable to have a rational conversation. I mean, I still wonder how you can talk of a loving, charitable God yet plug your best-selling book and homophobia (and the occasional racism) at the same time. Neither does Maher. What ultimately develops is a picture of a religion, one based around its founder Jesus Christ, a religion that is totally at odds with the message and principles of that founder.

And then there was Mormonism. Now, don't get me wrong, nothing against Mormons--I've generally found them to be kind and very loving people (unless you tell them you're gay, then, well, shit). But, as Maher points out, the Mormon church has some pretty, well, mysticism-esque beliefs. For example, like Scientology (another religion that is often openly mocked), Mormonism believes that our creator lives on another planet. Of course, there is nothing to do with self-auditing, but there is posthumous baptism of such individuals as Adolf Hitler (really, Mormonism? REALLY?!?) and Joan of Arc (ok, pretty sure she spoke to God as well so she's covered I'd say). But dogma is dogma and your choice of belief is certainly yours to make.

Finally he discusses the other two of the big three: Judaism and Islam. Again, as before, the fundamentalists show themselves at odds with the reality of modern life, even as they answer text messages and claim their right to freedom of speech while bemoaning that right in others (even killing, in some cases, to take it away). But Maher is quick to avoid nitpicking on any single religion or sect, but instead to point out the greatest issue with much of fundamentalist religion: its focus, like early Catholicism, on a complete lack of thought. Fundamentalist leaders thrive off of their ability to tell their followers what to do: how to vote (a great clip comes to mind of a woman at a festival of some sort: "I vote for George Bush because, well...I don't really know much about his policies but I share his faith so that's all that matters."), where to invest their money, even what movies to see or what music to listen to. Frankly, I think any God who has watched humanity developed would be heartbroken to see it exploit and use in such a way, to completely abandon its God-given intellect to follow such leaders.

And therein lies the value in this film. It is not a exclusively a critique of (or worse, a tirade against) organized religion, but a sincere call for honest thought about the issue. I personally believe that everyone should follow whatever faith (or lack thereof) they find to be true, but I hesitate to accept the ability of those who follow fundamentalist sects to go on that ever-important search for that truth. Throughout my teen years I had an outright battle against my religion and my God, much like Maher who ultimately rejected his religion. But if you are going to be religious, as I have chosen to be, I think it is also vital to go through that questioning, to honestly and genuinely search for your truth and your values and your reasons to believe. If you can't find that, then why do you believe at all, and how can you say that you have true faith? Faith has never meant blindness to questioning; faith is, rather, an acceptance of doubt and an understanding that there will always be doubt, but the rational and informed decision to jump past that doubt and just accept something. We have faith in our friends even though we know they could easily hurt us, because through that faith we know that they never would. But it would be dumb to trust a total stranger with your bank account information, for example. In much the same way, it's completely dumb to trust someone who sounds great and who promises that all of your questions will be answered and all your problems taken care of, without ever questioning that person and his or her right to speak on behalf of your creator.

So I hope that Maher's film can pique more than one person's interest, and can start a real conversation. Unfortunately, those who most need to see it, to inject a little bit of doubt (and willingness to do so) into their lives and their beliefs, never will even give one ear. But I, well, I will gladly doubt and question the tenets of my religion everyday, especially those tenets written in the Bible, because that is the only way I know to arrive at a deeper understanding of what it means to be faith. I am not afraid to watch a documentary like this, to have my beliefs questioned and thrown into a trash compactor, because I have seen them hold up, and because I believe that is what I am supposed to do. But, hey, if you're afraid to question your beliefs, afraid to let them stand the test of threat from outside, then don't see this movie. Otherwise, go see it right now, and let's have a conversation about the place of religion in the modern world.

Case in point: is it right to condemn loving relationships and to create unnecessary legal hiccups just because the Bible (and only the Old Testament, mind you) allegedly condemns homosexual acts? Frankly, I don't want to worship a God who believes that love should be denied in any form. Do you? Therein lies the challenge of modern religion: whether to change to accomodate modern life, or to cling to a 2000-year old mysticism that would, were it claimed as fact today, seem to be utter insanity?