The Choir Without The Preacher

In a review of Religulous over on The New Republic, Damon Linker, discusses the views taken by Bill Maher in the film:

Maher hilariously exposes astonishing levels of ignorance and parochialism among the earnestly pious Americans he encounters in his travels around the country . . . Religulous achieves the rare feat of blending stiletto-sharp cultural criticism with farce . . . Maher and director Larry Charles are highly adept at ridiculing their fellow citizens. Anyone who has seen Charles' last film (Borat) is familiar with his directorial style: put ordinary Americans on camera, ask them a few questions about their beliefs, and then stand back as they reveal their vapidity.

Borat did this beautifully, but he did it with ulterior motives. Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of Borat allowed different kinds of people to bounce off of their perceptions of the character he meticuloulsy created. The laughs that punctuated each of Borat's cultural missteps unfurled our, the audience's, prejudices against outsiders. The people in the film weren't the joke -- the audience members were. Maher attempts what looks to be a similar tactic.

Yet Maher has loftier ambitions than laughs. He wants to save the world from the idiocy he unearths in the American heartland, and he believes the best way to fulfill this aim is to mercilessly attack religion and all those who adhere to it. And that's why the film, like so much written by critics of religion in recent years, must ultimately be judged a failure . . . [Because] Maher takes on simpletons and extremists instead of seeking out theologians and other thoughtful believers to explain and defend their beliefs . . . Not only is this approach to religion intellectually fraudulent and morally sloppy--equating as it does scientifically literate believers with God-intoxicated scriptural literalists--but it is also asinine as a practical strategy

But Maher's only appears to be the same tactic. Instead, Maher's attempt, like his other comedy, is targeted against the people he is engaging, not the larger issue. Where Borat pushed us to reevaluate our views, Maher uses unsophisticated thinkers to make us feel good about ourselves. He commits this same mistake in his HBO show when he tells two black guests to stop arguing because he doesn't like to see "black on black fighting." Or when he refers to Sarah Palin as a "stewardess." I am often uncomfortable watching Maher's fumbling, although I do appreciate the platform he gives to his panel members. And while he is a good liberal, his talent never seems quite up to the task at hand.

Linker goes on to discuss how people like Richard Dawkins commit similar moral crimes in their efforts to underscore the dangers of religion, but, on that point, I could not disagree more Linker. Dawkins' book The God Delusion summarizes beautifully and compassionately the wrongness of religion in a manner Maher could learn from. Preaching to the choir never works, but there are people out there who need and deserve a preacher other than Bill Maher.