New Movie Alert: Religulous

On this blog, I've done some posting (and had some great conversations) about made-up words, so I couldn't pass up the opportunity to post about a new movie coming out in November from Borat director Larry Charles, the title of which blends the two words "religious" and "ridiculous" - Religulous. In it, "Bill Mahr takes on the current state of world religion."

Woo, Nelly. Well, at least Michael Moore can thank Mahr for drawing some of the slings and arrows of the negative and vocal conservative crowd away from him for a change.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with scrutinizing the precepts and practices of religion (because I don't see the problem with scrutinizing anything; nothing's beyond rational inquiry in my book). I know quite a few people who will mind though - especially given the kind of scrutinizing this movie is advertising it does. You know, . . . the [*gasp*] humorous kind. These are the same people who can't stand Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and are completely confused by Steven Colbert. (Apparently sin lurks behind every double entendre and corny pun and the devil himself feeds on satire.)

I'm not saying the movie is good. For crying out loud (You like that? I didn't even blaspheme.), I haven't even seen it yet, and I'm not even especially fond of Mahr. I'm just saying, we've lived through the release of The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ. Surely we can do without the boycotting this time, right? Let's let this thing have it's 15 minutes and get on with life. See it if you wish. Skip it if you wish. Let's just try not to get our knickers all in sailors' knots over it, okay?

Pet Peeves: The Mission Field

Just down the block from me are two churches right across the street from one another. It's a pity I'm an atheist - that would be damn convenient . . .

On a walk recently, I saw a sign at the end of one of the church's driveways (pictured to the left here) and walked closer to get a better view of what it said - "You Are Now Entering The Mission Field." Now, if, through this statement, they mean to encourage their parishioners to practice things like brotherly love, fine. However, if they're referring to mission work in the more common sense of the phrase - "converting the godless" - we've got a problem.

This. This . . . is precisely the kind of thing that raises my hackles when it comes to religion. I don't begrudge anyone of their beliefs or right to practice them. Likewise, I'd like others to refrain from self-righteously thinking I need to be "saved."

I realize plenty of people who do mission work believe they are sharing something wonderful with the world, something that can transform people's lives in a positive way. And I'm not saying that some of the people they've "recruited" aren't happier now as a result of their indoctrination, and thankful for it. I'm just opposed to the intrusive, assuming behavior that can accompany some of this. Atheism does not equate ignorance, immorality, or evil. I've come to hold my beliefs about religion the same way I've come to hold beliefs about many other things - through becoming well-informed on the subject. To presume otherwise is insulting and disrespectful. Don't come insisting I accept god into my heart, and I won't insist you cure yourself of your pesky god delusion. "Live and let live," people.

related post

Evangelicals and Child Abuse

First, let me preface what I am about to write by saying I respect people of all faiths, although I am not a religious person myself. There are many people in my life, whom I love dearly, who are religious and attend a house of worship on a regular basis. While I may find fault with their beliefs, I would never begrudge them their right to believe and worship or belittle them for doing so.

What I do find fault with is child abuse in the name of “God.” Most of us are all too aware of the sexual abuse rampant in the Catholic church (>>) because of the many many cases that came to light in the past few years, but I’m not sure how many know about the emotional abuse that is being inflicted upon children in the Evangelical church. I watched the documentary Jesus Camp the other night, and to say it was eye-opening would be an understatement.

I have no problem with children being taught the religious rules and traditions of their family and community (I myself went to Sunday school and feel that I learned some very important moral lessons). However, in these Evangelical “Jesus camps,” very young children are being brainwashed and emotionally traumatized; told to take extreme viewpoints and action on political and ethical issues they are too young to fully comprehend or appreciate; lied to about scientific facts; encouraged to adopt an “us and them” xenophobic outlook on life; and asked to be ready to lay down their lives for “God” (likened to the Al-Qaeda training their children to go to war – the camp leader draws this parallel herself).

Non-religious AND religious individuals should be concerned about what’s happening in these camps. If the Evangelical church is, like they state in the documentary, 80 million strong, the damage ultimately done could be quite devastating. The effects of this kind of child abuse on children in the years following the abuse can include: low self-esteem, depression, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, eating disorders, problems in school and work, delinquency, teen pregnancy, suicide attempts, criminal or antisocial behavior, substance abuse, aggressive behavior, relationship difficulties, and spousal and/or child abuse. And, unfortunately, the domino does not stop there. The dysfunction doesn’t just affect the person individually but the society as well. The implications for social welfare, healthcare, politics (think Mike Huckabee -dude doesn't believe in evolution) and foreign relations are staggering.

I wish I could end this blog entry with a suggested action item to counteract what is being done, but I’m at a loss. The only thing I can recommend is that you watch the documentary for yourself if you haven’t done so already, my reasoning being that “forewarned is forearmed.” And, of course, I welcome any related comments or suggestions from those reading.