Religulous - A review of a review, and a review

Bill Maher's new documentary on religion, Religulous, is out. I went to see it on Friday, and I found it hilarious. Maher goes around asking religious folks questions. Now, if you're going to see it for a serious criticism of religion, you're going to the wrong place. Maher is a comedian, and this movie shows that. It's funny and engaging, but much less than philosophical. I recommend it to anyone who likes to have a good laugh at the expense of fundamentalist religious belief. If you want to see a much better and more in depth review, see this review on Pascal's Bookie (a new blog I hope you check out by a friend of mine).

I didn't really want to write a blog post reviewing the movie, though - I thought it was funny, and that's about it. Then I found a review of Religulous on the Catholic League's website. Well, I can't turn down an opportunity to criticize that.

[....]it is pure nonsense to play Catholicism off against science. After all, were it not for the role of the Catholic Church, there would have been no Scientific Revolution and no early breakthroughs in astronomy.

Did I miss the part of the movie where Maher "played Catholicism off against science"? If anything, Maher shows that Catholics are much more reasonable when it comes to science - he mentions that they believe in evolution and interviews an astronomer/reverend who works for the Vatican (one of the few interviews in the movie where the interviewee comes off sounding quite reasonable).

Equally dumb is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are flawed because they don’t speak to child abuse, rape and torture. Had Maher gone to more religion classes, he would have learned that the central taboos listed are umbrella strictures that cover a host of subsidiary sins.

It's true that, under Catholic theology, the ten commandments are seen as just the general structure of their ethical system. However, this misses the point - Maher was pointing out the absurdity of the commonly held beliefs about what the 10 commandments say (that they literally just restrict 10 different things). Even taken to be a criticism of Catholic theology (which I don't think it was ever meant to be) , I think Maher still has a point. Most of the commandments are irrelevant to modern law - commandments 1 through 4 can't be construed to be used in modern law (the fourth commandment, in the most charitable interpretation, tells you to follow the state's law - not exactly useful, it wouldn't make sense to make a law that says you have to follow the law).

More important, if Jesus is not the Son of God, as Maher contends, then why does he waste time—and make himself look silly in the process—by invoking Jesus’ name to give homosexuality a pass? In the flick, Maher argues that homosexuality couldn’t be so bad if Jesus never mentioned it.

Maher was making a point - assume, for a moment, that Christianity is true. Then why care so much about homosexuality? Jesus didn't seem so concerned about it. It was a reductio ad absurdum.

And, of course, Maher’s contention that religion kills looks rather feeble given that the 20th century was the most violent in history.

Recent history doesn't change earlier history, does it? Religion continues to kill today, and the fact that there are some other causes of death and war doesn't change that (although perhaps a valid argument may be made that Maher exaggerates the dangers of religion).

What I find very interesting about this statement about Religulous is more about what is left out than what is in it. The only criticism Maher levels specifically at Catholicism is that the grandeur of the Vatican seems contrary to Jesus' message about the rich and poor. The Catholic League's statement conveniently leaves this out. They seem much more bent on attacking the criticisms that weren't even directed at them.