At the end of the movie, though, Maher leaves comedy behind and launches into a diatribe that I suspect is his real purpose in making the movie. Here it is, with my comments following.
(Maher) The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end. The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live.
The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it.
Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.
And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.
This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.
And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.
If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
That lays is out pretty boldly. Religious people are going to blow up the world because of their beliefs. Our only hope is to somehow stamp out religion before this happens.
He raises the spectre of Al Qaeda with nuclear weapons, which I think most people (religious included) are horrified by this idea. Al Qaeda is a dangerous criminal organization made up of religious extremists. The thing is that Maher's conclusion doesn't really follow. He doesn't say we should keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminal organizations, or of violent extremists, he suggests that the real problem is keeping them out of the hands of religious people.
I think that what Maher is trying to suggest is that all religious people are dangerously irrational. We are all violent extremists who want to see the world go up in a blaze of nuclear fire so that Jesus can come back. If we're not, we're certainly just a short step from it.
Ive heard variations of this before. The president is a literalist Christian but seems to be a decent and rational person. then, one night, the President has a dream in which God tells him to press the red button and start the end-times. In this scenario there is no difference in believing in the talking snake in Genesis and having a voice in your head that compels you to kill billions of people. Mistaken or non-rational beliefs are the same as serious mental illness.
I would agree that it is a bad idea to elect someone with a serious mental illness President of the United States. People who are hearing voices that tell them to kill others should not be allowed to play with nuclear weapons. But that's really not the same as Maher's conclusion.
And Maher's implication that George W. Bush based his decision to send troops to Iraq based on prayer seems to be a fantasy on his part. I can understand him objecting to the president's decision, and I can understanding him disliking the president's religious convictions, but there is no reason to draw a linkage like this between the two. No rational reason, anyway.
Maher says that we should no longer "indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people." He isn't specific about what he means. It sounds like he could be saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold public office, or possibly religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But the idea that people from all belief systems can participate in the nation's decision making is not an indulgence, it is a pillar of American Democracy.
Maher says that faith means making a virtue of not thinking. Sometimes it does, and when it does, I can agree that this is a bad thing. But maher is making a blanket statement and his parade of religious oddballs does not justify it. Faith and critical thinking went hand and hand in my home, in my church, in my denomination, and in my denomination. Was Martin Luther King Jr. an "intellectual slaveholder?" Was Deitrich Bonnhoeffer a justifier of "lunacy and destruction" when he and his union of churches stood up to Hitler in Nazi Germany?The idea that believing in God automatically makes a person a non-thinking sheep is not just inaccurate, it is ignorant.
Maher says that people who are moderately religious (I think he means to say "religious moderates") are just enablers for the extremists. He says that we should resign our membership in our religion to protest the bad things done in it's name. This would make sense if, say, Christianity was monolithic, but it's not. Asking me to resign from membership in the Westboro Baptist Church because of their homophobic ideas makes sense; asking me to resign form my church because of the Westboro attitudes is not. Would Maher ask someone to leave the Libertarian Party because of a Republican scandal? I doubt it, buit religion is different in his mind.
A better metaphor might be citizenship. The United States allowed slavery in its borders for many years, sponsored the genocide of Native Americans, denied women the vote, and had done many other questionable things. Should we all resign our citizenship in protest? That would seem to follow Maher's logic and, in his words...
"To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers."
(BTW, I think it's hilarious how Maher is echoing the language of Senator Joe McCarthy here. He really didn't think that one through. :))
One thing I do agree with Maher about it the danger of arrogance. When a person or group becomes convinced that they have the absolute and only handle on the truth, it is a very bad thing. He rightly says that humility is the safest and most honest approach to dealing wit the world.
I agree completely, though I'd like to expand on it. First, being religious doesn't automitically mean you fall into this trap. Humility is considered one of the greatest virtues by Christianity and we are well aware of the need to remind those who are swept away by false certainty (it happens all too often.)
But neing non, or even anti-religious is no safeguard against arrogance and false certainty. You see it in political extremists, both liberal and conservative, in capitalists and communists, in animal rights activists, nationalists, anarchists, racists, Atheists, Cubs fans, Sox fans, even TV comedians are not immune. ism you can think of who believe that they, and only they, are the guardians of truth. Even television comedians can fall into this kind of intolerant arrogance if they're not careful.
The problem isn't a religious one; it's a human problem. It affects religion, just at is affects every area of human existence, but the answer isn't to stamp out religion. That's not a compassionate answer, it's not a humble answer, and it's not a rational answer.
Maher's message is ultimately, "There's nothing wrong with bigotry and intolerance, as long as it's targeted at the right people."
I hope no one is irrational enough to believe this.
