Arkansas senator gets Borat-ed
flockwoodBill Maher’s new movie, Religulous, includes a painful-to-watch interview with a U.S. Senator from Arkansas.
The movie includes comments by U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the Genesis account of creation is true. Maybe the earth is 5,000 years old, maybe there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden, etc., etc.
Then, when Maher questions Pryor’s intelligence, Pryor replies that they don’t require people to take I.Q. tests before they join the U.S. Senate. Yikes.
Click here to see a clip from CNN via crooksandliars.com.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
On Jon Stewart the other night, Maher defended himself as saying something to the effect that he really wasn’t anti-religious and that he was “just asking questions”. From what little I’ve seen of this new movie, it’s hard to believe that Maher is so fair or innocent as he pretends. Granted, he has some rich material to mine for this project, but I cannot stand the insinuation that all people of faith are ignorant and arrogant anti-intellectuals. That’s a lie; there is no other word.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Jose….we agree on something!
Bill Maher is nothing but a weak minded bully. I’ve taken the time to watch his HBO show and every time I do I come away with the same conclusion: He is far less intelligent than he thinks he is. His idea of an intelligent argument is “he who is loudest, or can create the most people laugh at the expense of someone else, is the winner.” His smug looks when he thinks he has made a point are almost too much to bear. When I see him take on his air of superiority it is almost embarrassing.
I like the line used by the reviewer of his movie in the Salt Lake Tribune.
“In the end, Maher suffers from the same rigidity of thought – the certitude that he’s right and those who disagree are wrong – that he dislikes in people of faith. That makes “Religulous” a dispiriting experience, even if you agree with him.” –Sean P. Means
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
You’ve probably heard the term “fundamentalist atheist”. That’s an apt description, and even more appealing because it irritates the recipient.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 am
Praise God, we all three agree of the same thing. As for my self, I have lived with a (human) version of a snake during my first marriage, and he was as sly, decietful and cunning as the original to which I later added the nickname: son of the devil.
I have wondered how many athesits turn on their death bed and pray to God for eternal life. How many atheists have a pastor at their funeral, or even if they think about an afterlife; after all some form of belief has been around since man could begin to communicate.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Like the rest of you I have not seen the movie that you are discussing.
Unlike you, when Maher says, as he did on the Stewart show, that he is an agnostic (i.e., one who does not know whether there is a God) I take him at his word. I do not confuse that with his being an atheist.
Had he claimed to be an atheist, I would want to ask him to tell me about the God he was sure did not exist. That could be as interesting and revealing as trying to get some believers in God to tell me about the God they are sure does exist.
Not having seen the movie, I take him at his word that his primary role in it is asking questions about the faith his interviewees profess to believe. If they cannot answer those questions in a sensible manner I take it that reflects badly on them not on him — unless the questions betray an ignorance of the faith being discussed.
I would be quite surprised if the movie has Maher making claims about ALL religious people being “ignorant and arrogant anti-intellectuals,” or “wrong”, or that he dislikes everyone of them.
Apparently it is far easier to write an emotional review of a movie one has not yet seen, than to give a thoughtful, informed, critical assessment of a movie after seeing it.
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
on one of the clips: Funny as … well, Hell. a blasphemous denotation of all things holy and scriptural.
Doesn’t sound like something I want to give a critical assessment of. Since we are in the ignorant section AG why do you go for us, I’m sure you can scale down the evaluation so the rest of us can understand it.
October 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
AG,
There was nothing “emotional” about what I wrote. I’ve seen enough of Bill Maher to know what he things of religion, and I’ve listened to words from his own mouth and how he consistently makes fun of ANYTHING religious. How different do you think the movie will be from what he’s already said? Anyone who has listened to Maher on his own show, not when he is trying to sell a film, knows this.
Since I have seen him in more than just interviews where is he selling his movie, and you seem to not have, it would make more sense that I would have a better idea of what a movie from him with this theme would and would not contain. I’ve also read several reviews from those who have seen the movie.
Logically speaking, if Hugh Hefner made a movie for the big screen, what do you think it would contain?
And, if you care to read what I wrote, I never said he was an atheist. I know he says he is agnostic.
I stand by what I said previously, without reservation. You might try actually reading what I said before blasting it and writing as if you were intellectually and logically superior.
October 4th, 2008 at 4:29 am
from Beacon Dictionary of Theology; Richard S. Taylor Editor This is the doctrine that man cannot have any certainty about God’s existence or the supernatural generally, since such knowledge is by nature beyond the limits of human reason.
For all practical purposes the agnostic is one who claims to be ignorant of the answers to life’s ultimate questions. He refuses to take responsibility for this ignorance because the fault, he believes,lies not in himself but in the subject matter.
Who then lacks responsibility, reason, and ignorance; would that be the agnostic or the christian?
October 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I don’t think that anyone here actually called Maher an atheist. I did mention the term “fundamentalist atheist”, but that was because Maher’s approach to religion reminds me of the growing movement of adversarial atheists, people like Christopher Hitchens.
Also, while we admit to not having seen the film, it is acceptable to comment and make judgments based on Maher’s appearances on the Daily Show and Larry King Live, where he plugged his movie and showed selected clips. Maher does say that he’s not judgmental and that he’s merely asking questions, but the clips and his commentary indicate something different. He has a mission– “I also would like to arouse…the atheists or agnostics in America” and he has an intolerant view of religion– “Mankind is going to have to shed this skin to move forward”. From what I’ve seen his criticism centers on a couple of big points, that it’s wrong to be absolutely certain of supernatural religious beliefs, and that religious organizations are scams. Certainly he can find numerous examples to skewer, but no where was there any mention of other people of faith who reside outside of these caricatures. That omission is clearly intentional and it’s clearly deceitful. There are lots of church people who ask questions, struggle with faith, and who act with integrity. Maher really hammers on the topic of certainty, yet he seems completely sure of himself in telling people that they are wrong. That’s hypocrisy.
My problem with Maher is not that he made a movie that pokes fun at religious people and institutions, nor that it takes on these subjects critically. I am quite bothered that he has produced a polemic while he protests otherwise. He’s much like Michael Moore, although I’m not sure that Moor claims to be fair. I have read a couple of reviews of Religulous, written by professional movie critics who work for secular publications. They are likewise critical of Maher. They have seen the film, and I trust them to offer a more objective appraisal than Mr. Maher himself.
Peach and I may share disdain for Maher’s movie though I suspect that we have different reasons. In a number of areas I consider myself tolerant and accepting. When considering a political candidate for election, I care about how that candidate will fulfill the requirements of the office. It doesn’t matter what is the party affiliation, sex, age, or sexual orientation. Nor do I care about the candidate’s religion, be it liberal Protestant, evangelical, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, agnostic or atheist. Maher, however, is not so tolerant. When speaking of Sen. Pryor, he comments “It worries me that people are running my country who think, who believe in a talking snake.” We have too much intolerance inside of the church today; we don’t need more from outside.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I haven’t seen the movie, either, but I generally like Bill Maher, if only because of the different take he gives on issues. I might remind those who think that Maher’s targets are always on the right side of the political fence, that when he was doing the show “Politically Incorrect” on network TV, he did a show about the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski scandal. He had a panel that included at least two women who had publicly claimed to have had affairs with Clinton (Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, I believe), who discussed various aspects of Clinton’s anatomy on national TV, the only time during my lifetime that women on TV openly discussed the physical features of a sitting president. He can be wicked, but he’s generally right, in my view.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
In my own opinion this movie is another way at looking at peoples attitudes towards life and the things that are entailed in life.One person looks at a glass of water half full as opposed to half empty.Bill Maher just made you look at it at another angle that many people did not want to.If statistics are anything to go by heres a thought.As the movie states there are 16% are non religious people in anyway.This is huge.It is one of the reasons for such a dramatic change in presidency in America today.In general conclusion I completely agree with Bill.A sensational movie.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I saw the movie and thought it was very poorly done. It’s obvious that he creatively edited certain interviews to make people look stupid. (And yes, some of the people he interviewed didn’t need any help to look foolish). Almost all of the people he interviewed were not reputable sources. And he was cynical throughout the entire movie. He may not be an atheist, but it seemed clear that he hates God and hates religion. I would hope that even people who hold Bill Maher’s viewpoints would be able to discern that the content was a lot of nothing. There are plenty of better sources out there that refute religion – this was not a good one by any means.