Bill Maher's Religulous

Yes. I saw it. More like: I survived it. Don't get me wrong, Bill Maher is often right on target. In fact, I agree with 80% of what he went after in his documentary. And some of his stuff is hilarious. But why does he have to be so arrogant, so culturally insensitive (read: racist as hell), so narrow-minded while supposedly deconstructing religious certainty? He has some certainty issues of his own that need deconstructing. His way of "interviewing" people absolutely replicates colonial patterns of domination and exploitation. James was quick to point out that the one time an interviewee demanded to be heard (instead of repeatedly talked over) Maher stood up and said "I'm out." Guess he can't stand a dose of his own medicine. And that's just my point. It seems like every time I hear the content of a good agnostic/atheist argument it's coming in the form of belligerent condescension--the very "form" that agnostics and atheists hate in religious people!!!

He wants to talk about all the "violence" done in the name of religion throughout the years. But I wonder, what exactly does a "first world" heterosexual male of affluence over-powering and denying voice to a Muslim woman look like? He may not like religion (and I don't either most the time), but his closing scene had plot, setting and music that would fit right into any crusade.

So that's my critique from the head. My heart is curious about Bill Maher.

Whenever anyone is that opposed to any one thing, without taking context of that "thing" into consideration AT ALL, I often find there's a love/hate relationship beneath it all. (Think about all those out-spoken homophobes out there who have been caught behind closed doors with same gender lovers.) My point: it's really easy to see the terrible atrocities carried out in the name of religion, but you'd have to be selectively blind not to see the ways religion also helps, heals, and strengthens. I wonder why Maher--with all of his insight, intelligence and humorous wisdom--cannot see the good along with the bad. I wonder where his one-sidedness on this issue originates from. At one point in the film he admitted to the privilege of entertaining doubt. He admitted that people caught between a rock and a hard place often need faith in order to survive. I wish he would have explored this particular phenomenon more deeply because it was the only time, though out the entire documentary, that I felt his humanness, his vulnerability pierce through the self-righteous, chip-on-the-shoulder facade.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of my other clergy, athiest and agnostic friends on this one.