The Religious Atheist

Bill Maher’s Religulous received mixed reviews from movie critics around the nation. Some newspapers such as the New York Daily News and the New York Post loved it, while others like Newsday and The Boston Globe ripped it. The New York Daily News gives the film four stars and states, “What he [Maher] does do finally in this funny, refreshing movie is assert how unrestrained religiosity could guarantee the ‘end days’ many of his subjects admit to looking forward to.” (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2008/09/30/2008-09-30_oh_god_religulous_features_bill_maher_in.html)

Similarly, the New York Post describes the film as a “religious experience” while granting it three stars. (The Post’s favorable critique isn’t surprising, however, considering that the writer of the review believes that “[n]o defender of any religion could withstand five minutes of cross-examination from a junior varsity debater”.) (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2008/09/30/2008-09-30_oh_god_religulous_features_bill_maher_in.html)

Kudos to Newsday and The Boston Globe for exposing Maher’s hypocrisy. Maher criticizes religious supporters as fanatical; yet he is as rabid in his atheistic views as the very people he denigrates and mocks.

Newsday’s Rafer Guzman labels the film “a nasty, condescending, small-minded film, self-amused and ultimately self-defeating.” He also adds that “[Maher’s] routines are often vulgar: Whenever homosexuality comes up, Maher resorts to sniggering anatomical jokes. After the interviews are wrapped, director Larry Charles (‘Borat’) uses the editing room to have the last laugh. At one point, the film visually compares a well-dressed black pastor to a flashy black pimp.” (http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/partii/ny-etrelig5864082oct01,0,6930563.story )

This vulgarity should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Maher’s previous works. A juvenile sense of humor is his trademark.

The Boston Globe’s Wesley Morris describes the film as follows:
“As an exchange of ideas, this is a hopeless project, since Maher's doubt is as immovable as his interviewees' certainty. As entertainment, it's entirely a matter of whether of you find Maher's superiority complex a laughing matter. He's a committed skeptic, and those who aren't must be stupid.” (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2008/10/03/maher_happily_makes_a_mockery_of_religion/)
Maher’s subjects are purposely not theologians or biblical scholars, a point raised by Morris later in his review: “Many of the faithful Maher interviews are underprepared or exposed as naïve, misinformed, or possibly fraudulent.” But let’s give Bill a break; it’s difficult to mock those who can defend themselves.

In the film Maher contends, “I’m only asking questions.” But anyone familiar with his modus operandi is well aware of the disingenuousness of this statement. Ridicule is his motive, as Morris summarizes in the final paragraph of his column:

“Mostly Maher is content to riff, rant, opine, judge, reduce, and preach - zealously, I might add. Early in the film, he meets with a group of American men in their tiny church, and speaks from an elevated pulpit, requiring them to look up at him. One of the men doesn't appreciate Maher's tone, excuses himself, and exits. He knows that Maher is not looking for answers. He's looking for targets.”

Maher’s dirty, little secret is that he is as zealously religious as any Christian fundamentalist. The only difference is that his religion is atheism.

Donald Tremblay

The New Atheism

Yesterday, the Union of Catholic Asian News posted an article about the Universal Solidarity Movement (USM). (http://www.ucanews.com/2008/08/20/mirror-room-helps-people-discover-divinity-within-themselves/) According to its website, the Indian spiritual group defines itself as a movement “based on the spiritual foundations of all the world religions,” and its vision statement “promotes a paradigm shift from a narrow understanding of religiosity to a broad and liberative spirituality.” (And no, I don’t know what that means.)

The UCAN article focused mainly on the movement’s Meditation Room, which has elicited surprise from many worshippers who enter it for the first time. The room is empty, except for a ceiling fan, an overhead light . . . and a full-length mirror. No crucifix or Marian statue. No menorahs or postings of the Ten Commandments. No prayer rugs or incense. Just a mirror. And above the mirror is a sign written in English and Sanskrit. The English says, “God Within”. The Sanskrit is “Aham brahmasmi,” translated as “I am God”.

That’s right. “I am God”.

According to USM’s founder, Varghese Alengaden, staring at ourselves in the mirror is an effective way to learn that we are “the image of God”. Sister C. Lissy says that after initially laughing while staring at her own reflection, she realized that “God is within me, not in a church. I also realized I was confronting myself and this helped me behave better with others." USM’s director says that after a week “people become aware of ‘a divine presence’ there, and this divinity is exuded by your reflection, which in a way is just another image of God’”.

Today’s New Age spiritualities are a form of inverted atheism. Whereas throughout history an atheist was defined as one who disbelieves in God’s existence; today’s inverted atheists believe it is “Man” who is God. Believing that God is nothing more than an infinite source of energy that we all possess is no different than denying the existence of the one true God. Any system that denies the “Creator-creature” distinction is atheistic. It is why Pope John Paul II was correct years ago when he referred to Buddhism as atheistic. Belief in God presupposes an acceptance of a “Supreme Being”.

New Agers believe in something . . . but it isn’t God.



Donald Tremblay