Religulous

Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on.

How did Bill Maher and Larry Charles get religious figures to agree to be interviewed on camera by the notoriously hostile-towards-religion Maher for their upcoming doc Religulous? According to an interview the comedian gave Patrick Goldstein, they didn’t:

It was simple: We never, ever, used my name. We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it ‘A Spiritual Journey.’ … The crew would set up and at the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they’d be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they’d have to talk to me. It was like–’And now here’s … Bill!’ You could usually see the troubled looks on their faces.
Click to expand...

Its like asking a Palestinian to talk about Israel and then inserting those comments as anti-semitism.
 
S.A.M. said:
Because he was not honest about what he was reporting on.
Click to expand...
No he was honest. Just because he needed to resort to trickery to get people to answer the tough questions he asks doesn't mean he wasn't honest about what he was reporting on.



Its like asking a Palestinian to talk about Israel and then inserting those comments as anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
No. Nothing at all like that.
 
pjdude1219 said:
No he was honest. Just because he needed to resort to trickery to get people to answer the tough questions he asks doesn't mean he wasn't honest about what he was reporting on.



No. Nothing at all like that.
Click to expand...

If you mispresent yourself, you are dishonest. Simple as that. Or do you think it was honest when Ben Stein did it to Dawkins?
 
Only because you "understand" the side that misrepresents itself. Wow, take a number.
 
S.A.M. said:
A murder by a atheist is as much a result of his beliefs [especially when targeting the religious] as murder by a theist is considered a result of his.
Click to expand...

That's a bizarre statement. If an atheist and a Christian both commit a hypothetical murder, shooting someone during a mugging, do you believe those murders reflect something about atheism and Christianity?
 
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
 
S.A.M. said:
Only if the athiest believes he should kill a religious person to improve his society and goes around mugging theists for that purpose. Or starts an anti-religion club to mug people.
Click to expand...

And does it reflect anything about Christianity?
 
If atheism did not state there were no Gods, would an atheist still be anti-religious?
 
That doesn't really make sense. Atheism is only concerned with Gods, not religious people.
 
Like Bill Mahr? Dawkins? People are always concerned with other people. Some people think mocking other people's belief is tolerance, while mocking their colour is intolerance. Others think its the other way around. So who is right?
 
Sam, I really think you should surrender your moderator status. With the ignorant blabber you poison these forums with, I think it's best that you not be in charge of anything.
 
I suppose by ignorant blabber you mean I should ignore the fact that Maher not only misrepresented himself to the people he interviewed but also contrived to edit their comments to present only what he wanted to depict, while generalising against all religions of which he had very little knowlegde.
 
You can't help your skin color, but you can legitimately be criticized for your opinions and beliefs which are of your own choosing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top