Subversive!
Oct. 8th, 2008 11:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osarabaAHAHAHAHAHAHA~! WARNING: If you think you'll be upset by "pro-abortion" jokes, please don't click.
http://chaospet.com/2008/10/08/110-jesus-loves-abortion/
In somewhat related news, I went to see Religulous on Sunday with my parents.
It was what you'd expect from Bill Maher. This was the format: ask a religious person to explain something that, to an anti-religious person, makes no sense whatsoever; get an answer; challenge and/or make fun of answer; repeat. Sometimes the ridicule was subtle; sometimes overt. Sometimes it was warranted because the person (or their argument) really was ridiculous; sometimes it wasn't because the pieces were cut together to make them look more ridiculous. (Though to be fair, it doesn't seem like answers were completely mismatched. The selective editing was used more with pregnant pauses and facial expressions than anything else.)
He spoke with advocates of the three major religions, as well as certain (in)famous branches of Christianity, and a brief mention of Scientology. He treated them all equally in his disbelief, which was actually quite refreshing.
In any case, as I'd put forth in a previous comment, it was entertainment -- mostly meant for people who already agree with Maher. I don't think it was all that hysterical (especially not as hysterical as the older woman behind me who couldn't stop cackling over every little thing), but I do think it was amusing. I'm generally not into the kind of joking that is ridicule for its own sake, so the parts where it was obvious the film had been cut to produce the optimal "ridiculous" effect ranged from somewhat irritating to spoil-the-mood annoying.
But on the major plus sides: it was informative on some details of particular religions that I wasn't aware of, with interesting links between them. Maher's message in the last few minutes of the movie -- that such prevalent belief in End Times results in a lack of motivation to care about what we do to the earth -- is an important one. If we are to survive on earth, we have to take care of it; but when people believe that the end of the world is near, what does it matter if we destroy the earth in the meantime? Maher says the only thing he hates more than prophecy is self-fulfilling prophecy. And of course, this is an example of it, if there ever was one!
And even more importantly, Maher implores the anti-religious to stop being timid and stand up and say what we think, what we believe to be important -- and implores those that are "moderately religious" to stop and really examine the price that is being paid on its behalf.
After reading this review, it makes me think that it may have been a poor decision on Maher's part, in using this sort of format to make his proposals -- because in association with his mockery of religion, his valid ideas are invalidated. I find that to be unfortunate, but again, in the context of the fact that most of the people watching the movie already agree with him -- or at least, don't really disagree -- the effect (either way) will be minimal.
Here's a positive review which also gives a few examples of the people he spoke to. I'm not sure I agree with this reviewer's belief that it would make an atheist leave the theater more confident in his opinion, or convert someone who's on the fence, but I find it interesting that I obviously fall somewhere in between these reviews, while still agreeing with Maher on much of what he said.
http://chaospet.com/2008/10/08/110-jesus-loves-abortion/
In somewhat related news, I went to see Religulous on Sunday with my parents.
It was what you'd expect from Bill Maher. This was the format: ask a religious person to explain something that, to an anti-religious person, makes no sense whatsoever; get an answer; challenge and/or make fun of answer; repeat. Sometimes the ridicule was subtle; sometimes overt. Sometimes it was warranted because the person (or their argument) really was ridiculous; sometimes it wasn't because the pieces were cut together to make them look more ridiculous. (Though to be fair, it doesn't seem like answers were completely mismatched. The selective editing was used more with pregnant pauses and facial expressions than anything else.)
He spoke with advocates of the three major religions, as well as certain (in)famous branches of Christianity, and a brief mention of Scientology. He treated them all equally in his disbelief, which was actually quite refreshing.
In any case, as I'd put forth in a previous comment, it was entertainment -- mostly meant for people who already agree with Maher. I don't think it was all that hysterical (especially not as hysterical as the older woman behind me who couldn't stop cackling over every little thing), but I do think it was amusing. I'm generally not into the kind of joking that is ridicule for its own sake, so the parts where it was obvious the film had been cut to produce the optimal "ridiculous" effect ranged from somewhat irritating to spoil-the-mood annoying.
But on the major plus sides: it was informative on some details of particular religions that I wasn't aware of, with interesting links between them. Maher's message in the last few minutes of the movie -- that such prevalent belief in End Times results in a lack of motivation to care about what we do to the earth -- is an important one. If we are to survive on earth, we have to take care of it; but when people believe that the end of the world is near, what does it matter if we destroy the earth in the meantime? Maher says the only thing he hates more than prophecy is self-fulfilling prophecy. And of course, this is an example of it, if there ever was one!
And even more importantly, Maher implores the anti-religious to stop being timid and stand up and say what we think, what we believe to be important -- and implores those that are "moderately religious" to stop and really examine the price that is being paid on its behalf.
After reading this review, it makes me think that it may have been a poor decision on Maher's part, in using this sort of format to make his proposals -- because in association with his mockery of religion, his valid ideas are invalidated. I find that to be unfortunate, but again, in the context of the fact that most of the people watching the movie already agree with him -- or at least, don't really disagree -- the effect (either way) will be minimal.
Here's a positive review which also gives a few examples of the people he spoke to. I'm not sure I agree with this reviewer's belief that it would make an atheist leave the theater more confident in his opinion, or convert someone who's on the fence, but I find it interesting that I obviously fall somewhere in between these reviews, while still agreeing with Maher on much of what he said.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 04:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 08:33 pm (UTC)It's too bad that some haven't learned from history -- and while people may argue that no one would do that sort of thing nowadays, they may fail to realize we're just doing it on a grander scale now, and can't see the forest for the trees.