Religulous

Okay, so I saw Religulous (2008). After hearing so much bad rap about it, I was surprised by finding myself actually liking it. However, I didn’t find it funny. The only partially funny part of the documentary are the posters. Wasn't this film supposed to be humorous? It is after all hosted by comedian Bill Maher. For some reason I thought that comedy was the intention; but truly, I didn’t laugh once. Then again, I didn’t laugh watching Borat either – thought it was the stupidest film I’ve ever wasted time and money on. Why do I mention Religulous and Borat in the same sentence? Simple, they were both directed by Larry Charles.

Back to Religulous. I liked it because it highlights some very pertinent questions that I also ask. For instance, why do Christians believe in things that are not in the Bible? An example would be the celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25th. Or keeping Sunday holy. These observances are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but still it is practiced as Biblical truth by the majority of Christendom. And that’s, in part, why I liked Religulous. It asks some valid questions.

A theme from Religulous is how Christianity does not reflect Jesus. I think this is in part what I tried to address in a post earlier this month: Religion vs Real Christianity. Maher asks some religious figures about the example of Jesus, versus their own; comparing religious figures with rock stars, which is so contrary to Jesus. Again, good and very valid questions. Standing in front of the Vatican Maher asks: “Does that look anything, like anything Jesus Christ had in mind?” A valid question. While I don’t believe God has anything against being wealthy (there were many examples of godly and wealthy men in the Bible), it is true that many religious figures seem to be in it for the money – this is foiled sharply against the example of Jesus. If anything, the purpose of the Church is NOT to make money for itself. Instead, it ought to be a conduit of encouragement, love and grace. And money received is to be channeled into helping others, not itself.

After an interview with some Christian truckers, Maher finishes his conversation with: “Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.” How sad that there should be such a clear difference between Christians and the Christ they follow; and that the real thing is the exception, rather than the norm. It is for this reason that I often do not want to call myself a Christian. I honestly find little in common with Christianity, and the vindicative hateful “God” they represent.

For instance, in Religulous, Christians are shown with posters saying “God hates fags!” One lady announced “I don’t hate them [homosexuals]; God hates them!” (So one is to believe that, a mere mortal is more loving that the God of love?!) What these depictions show me is that these Christians do not know what the Bible teaches when read cohesively. God does not hate sinners, God hates sin; and God doesn’t hate sin arbitrarily, but because of how it hurt us or those around us. Actually, the Bible teaches the opposite of what these posters say: God loves sinners (Romans 5:8)! And speaking of homosexuals, in the Bible homosexuals are listed among a group of other sinners, like drunkards and envious people (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10). Why don’t we see Christians with posters shouting God hates drunkards and God hates envious people? Probably because half of them like to take to the bottle or are jealous of their neighbors. These kinds of double standards by “Christians” is a terrible blight on the religion. Jesus clearly taught not to point the finger, and on many occasions proved by word and example that He is not judgmental. Now, if a perfect person like Jesus did not judge the “sinners” of his day, who are we – full of faults and sins – to judge anybody?

I also have to agree with an Amen, when Maher says: “Two things that are completely incompatible is Christianity, as Jesus taught it, and nationalism.” This is probably one of the main purposes of this blog – my protest against Church and State. The Kingdom of God is not of this World, let us never forget it; and not try to make it otherwise.

Maher interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican observatory discussing religion versus science. The priest remarked: “The Scriptures are not teaching science.” How true. And that is part of the problem – people do not know how to read the Bible. I’ve written about that before too: Who Wrote the Bible? While I agree that the Bible is not a science book, I disagree with the assumption that Science and Religion are on all things mutually exclusive. There definitely are areas of overlap. And his blanket questions, like “Do you believe in Evolution?” is very much naïve on the topic. Firstly, there are many types of evolution. For instance, cosmological evolution, macro biological evolution, micro biological evolution and here we find three further types: divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. I, for instance do not believe in macro evolution, but I do believe in micro evolution. On many occasions in the documentary Maher would ask such blanket questions, and did not allow his interviewees to explain their views in full.

He also makes big deals out of strange things. For instance, the fact that the virgin birth is not recorded in all four of the Gospels is of pivotal value to Maher. Or the fact that very little is known of Jesus' childhood is heavily troublesome for Maher. Why should this be the case? Jesus’ childhood is actually of very little consequence for the Gospels. That Jesus’ birth is covered is what ought to be surprising. The Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) are not biographies, as Maher believes. A biography covers the majority of a person life. This is not what the Gospels do or intends to do. They only substantially cover the three years of Jesus’ ministry and only touch on the highlights. His criticism of the Gospel in this regard is unfounded. It’s like criticising a news article for not reading like a good screenplay.

Further, Maher addresses the great old Question of Evil: “Why doesn’t He [God] just obliterate the Devil and therefore get rid of evil in the world?” This is an old theological / philosophical question and which I addressed on this blog before as well. It is a question that Maher, who is a champion of freedom (and freedom of speech in particular), ought to be able to figure out the answer of for himself. I’ve addressed this dilemma in parts in various posts here before, but let’s try to summarize it:

God is Love and the highest value for God is Love and God wants us all to share in that Love. A requirement for Love is the Freedom of Choice. Forced love is an
oxymoron. Bribed love is not love, it’s prostitution. Coerced love is not love, it’s harassment. Forced love is not love, it’s rape. We, therefore, have freedom of choice to love or not to love. Many people choose selfishness, i.e. not to love, and the result is pain and suffering to others and ourselves. If I rape you, I have used my freedom of choice not to love you. Shockingly, God cannot do anything about it, without taking away my freedom of choice. It is all good and well to ask God to take away all the suffering in the world, but at what cost? To do so, God has to take away our freedom of choice, in which case God would not be Love, but a Tyrant.

Religulous’ reference to Christianity being a copycat religion I well addressed in my post on the Zeitgeist film, and it would seem that Religulous did exactly the same type of ridiculously lame scholarship that Zeitgeist did. Then again, that’s what one would expect from Hollywood, isn’t it?
Religulous also addresses Faith and Maher describes it as follows: “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.” This is sadly, actually what most religions including the majority of Christianity does. This, of course, is not what Biblical faith involves as I explained in a recent post on "Faith". Maher praises doubt throughout the movie, saying: “Doubt is humble.” It is true in part. Admitting how little we know is humble. Not pretending to have all the answers is humble. But boasting doubt? It might be honest; I just don’t know whether it is humble.

I have a list of probably another ten points I can write about, but I think the above mentioned is enough.

To conclude, in general I liked Religulous for the simple reason that it asks some pertinent (and honest) questions. While there are some moments one could argue somewhat blasphemous, it was very clear to me that Maher actually have very high esteem for Jesus and much of his questions revolved around why Christianity are not like the "Christ" they profess. Much of the film, however, was based on the doubt of Maher (and assumingly also that of Larry Charles), and at times (deliberate?) misrepresentation of those involved. I cannot say that there was anything in this documentary that presented new questions, or facts to shake my trust in God. (It might shake one's faith in Religion, but that's nothing new -- my faith is not in Religion.)

In my opinion, a much better documentary on the topic of religious fundamentalism is CNN’s three part documentary God’s Warriors.

Paranoid Arab Boy

Reasons for the Death of a President (JFK)

I think this is why JFK was assassinated, and yes, I believe it was an inside-job.

Speech to the American Newspaper Publishing Association. You can listen to it here.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

La Rage

This is the future . . . People are becoming more and more angry at their governments, international institutions, conglomerate companies, modernist authorities . . .



This part really struck me:

The rage, for this world does not suit us, but does feed us with false dreams and true ramparts. / The rage, for this world does not fit us, and Babylon grows fat and starves us to death.

The truth about the Babylon-system, spoke about in the Book of Revelation, is slowly seeping into the consciousness of the common man.

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

New World Order

It would seem that my suspicions were not unfounded. How many paranoid prophets will it take to agree and propagate that the New World Order is on the way before the masses take head?

The Infamous "We the People"/"Second American Revolution" Videos

Post 9/11 Blues

Fundamentalist Fanatical Extremists -- not all bad...

The terror attacks in Mumbai, India, considered the worst terror attacks since 9/11, has come to an end with Indian commandos killing the last three gunmen on Saturday. The terrorists were after Americans (or anyone that looked American, i.e. any Westerners) and Jews. But the range of foreigners that died also included Germans, Canadians, Israelis, British, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Australians and Singaporeans – 195 deceased not counting the killed terrorists.

Few people doubt the religious motivation behind such attacks by Islamic militants. It is for this very reason that critical dialogue about religions should not be stifled.

A while back fellow blogger, Adam, sent me a link to an article by Fox News about a UN resolution “intended to curtail speech that offends religion – particularly Islam”. This is a serious concern. When people are acting out in such terrible ways, and that in the name of their religion, how can we “curtail speech”? I’m not saying hate speech – but a spade needs to be called a spade. If a religious group acts in an aggressive and brutal way one shouldn’t be afraid of offending the sensibilities of skewed religious views.

I have been told that Islam is not a militant religion – these are just a small extremist section of the religion. I know some Muslims, so I’m not taking the stereotypical route of accusing all of Islam of being militant. That would not only be unfair, but not the truth. However, we cannot sugarcoat dangerous sectarian groups.

Still, one should be careful. It can be easy to call all sectarians groups (any religious group that is different from the mainstream) extremist and fanatical and mean it derogatorily. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with extremists and fanatics; as long as their extremist or fanatical behaviour doesn’t harm others. Take the Amish as an example. They would probably be labelled extremists or fanatics, but they don’t bother anybody and there Anabaptist background means that they practise non-resistance. In other words, they won’t turn into terrorists. So even if they are fundamentalist fanatical extremists – that’s okay. Fanaticism is not a danger to society in and of itself. In fact, it might even be a good thing: I’m sure the Amish are better at protecting the environment; they don’t consume much energy or add substantially to pollution; they are self-sustaining and therefore do not rely on government assistance like Social Security; they encourage family life and simple living (opposed to the overindulgence that caused the worldwide financial crisis), etc.

Democrats and Free Speech

I’m really enjoying Adam’s education of me regarding the Democrats. In a reply to a previous post of mine, Adam pointed out how the Democrats are actually working against Freedom of Speech, by trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (sorry for linking to Wikipedia) policy. “Fairness is Censorship” is how the Washington Times describe the Fairness Doctrine and the Bussiness & Media Institute highlights how this policy could fetter Internet freedom and net neutrality. (Here is another interesting source about the problems with the Fairness Doctrine.)

I become more and more convinced that freedom in America is under serious assault, regardless of the political parties.

Thanks Adam.