Analyzing Bill Maher’s “Religulous”

Analyzing Bill Maher’s “Religulous”

The topic of religion has been a subject of debate for a long time. Atheists and other non-believers argue that it is overrated, and aims at enslaving people with its beliefs. Karl Marx is famed for his sentiments on religion, which he posits, is the opium of the people. Marx perceived religion as a human-made theory, which attempted to enslave man through its principles. In the film “Religulous,” comedian Bill Maher equally criticizes religion as the worst form of slavery to humanity. He posits that the world could be a better place if there were no religion and its principles to govern people’s beliefs. His argument is structured upon various significant religions of the world, which he criticizes throughout the movie. In the film, he is seen touring the world, where he conducts interviews with Christians, Catholics in Vatican, Mormons, Buddhists, Islam, among other religions. He attacks Islam with the Jihad concept, while he finds no fault in Buddhism and Hinduism. He perceives Christianity in light of Thomas Jefferson that it is the most perverted system that ever ruled over man. Maher, in the film “Religulous,” criticizes religion by ridiculing some of its teachings, which he finds enslaving rather than enlightening.

Maher’s argument contains various fallacies, which religious supporters may explain as a misunderstanding of faith in God. For instance, in the scene where he goes to a truck stop, he confesses a lack of knowledge in what to believe. Yet he refers to the Christian belief in God as ridiculous. “I preach the gospel of I don’t know…” (Maher). He is inconsistent, as he neither proclaims atheism or a belief in God. He makes suggestions that have no proof, or what critics would call outright ridiculous. An example is a scene where he quotes from Jesus’ sermon on the mountain. “Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Maher). He interprets the verse that Jesus was opposed to being rich, which is a false perception. His argument focuses on a single biblical passage, rather than understanding the context of the particular verse. He lacks the open-mindedness to read and understand the Bible. His interviews come across as mockery, as he criticizes a belief, that he has little knowledge. To challenge the Bible, he has first to read it and understand it, so that he can base his criticism.

Maher uses humorous expressions during the interviews to educate and cause laughter. I found such scenes to be more persuasive, as he tries to depict his arguments about the failure of religion in different aspects. In one instance, he ridicules money-making televangelists, who make ridiculous claims such as they are direct descendants of Jesus Christ or their ability to turn gay people straight. Although his examples are blatant, they help to put his point across successfully.

Maher tries to base his argument on previously known religious critics such as Thomas Jefferson and lacks the authenticity of his ideas. He questions the believers if following their faith blindly without evidence is sound. I found the part where he calls the faith of the worshippers at the Trucker’s chapel blind without evidence ineffective. I also find his interviews with ordinary believers as some cheap stunt, as religious matters could have been best addressed by religious scholars and elites, who have extensive knowledge on the subject. His questions also tend to mock his interviewees, their God and beliefs, which brings out anger, rather than getting him answers. For instance, at the Truckers Chapel, he mockingly tells them that their religion will not be recognized in heaven. One man shouts back at him that he has been saved for the last six years, and ever since, he has stopped doing drugs and prostitutes. He makes no attempt at being fair, which is quite annoying.

Although there are some aspects of truth in Maher’s argument, I mostly do not agree with him on the issue of believing in nothing. First, I agree that religion has been misused by religious leaders to enslave its people. This aspect is evident in the faithfulness and strictness to which people observe religious feasts and other activities organized by their religions. Thomas Jefferson, famed for his Jefferson Bible, argued that human beings required enlightenment, which would free them from the chains of slavery they have lived with, veiled in religion. He is quoted telling his nephew Peter Carl, about questioning any belief or faith in God; “Question with boldness even the existence of a god, because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that blindfolded fear” (Monticello.org). Jefferson admired Jesus for his exemplary service to humanity but found Christianity wanting, as church leaders had corrupted Christ’s teachings to enslave people. I support the fact that religion oppresses people, but believing in an Infinite Power is paramount. Maher could choose to believe in God, and ignore the teachings of all other religions if he found them unsatisfactory.

Religulous presents some exciting angles in which one can explore religion and its teachings. Though it tends to criticize religion, the existence of infinite power is undeniable. Therefore, Maher’s belief in nothing could be described as a belief on its own. Thus, the movie brings out a controversy that revolves around religion, the people’s opium.