The title of Bill Maher's film (directed by Larry Charles) makes the message clear: religion is ridiculous. Lest I be accused of bias in this review, allow me to clarify that yes, to a certain extent I agree. In the 21st century, as the palpable truths of archaeological and scientific discoveries increasingly contradict the abstract truth of word on paper, it's hard for 16% of us to believe the latter over the former. 16%, as Maher tells us, are those Americans who identify with no religion and doubt or don't believe in the existence of a higher power.

Religulous takes Maher all over the world interviewing people who are usually not representative of their religion (e.g., the guy who plays Jesus in a passion play at a Christian theme park) and making asses of them. The idea is to point out the amusing hypocrisies and contradictions, the excuses people have to make for themselves to believe in this day and age. And if nothing else, the film is funny, though if Maher isn't preaching to the choir he's at least joking to them: I doubt many of Maher's cracks would be funny if you were a devout Baptist.

Most of the film is spent debunking America's favorite cult, Christianity. From an "ex-gay" man (married, of course, to an ex-lesbian) to the aforementioned Christian theme park to the Vatican, or at least right out front, Maher ostensibly tries to figure out what makes people adhere to their dogma, though one gets the feeling he's really just there to make fun of them.

There are also important points to be made here, for instance: contrary to current American political discourse, several of the “Founding Fathers” rejected or at least questioned Christianity, with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin resolutely denying the divinity of Christ and John Adams questioning at least the institution of the Christian church. As conservative Republicans continue to insist on injecting Christianity into our Constitution or claiming it’s already there, clarifications like this are necessary to preserve true freedom in the United States.

The Catholics in Religulous seem the most friendly and willing to admit the shortcomings of their faith. "That worries me too," one priest admits when Bill points out that Catholicism with its saints, angels, and Holy Trinity more resembles a poly- rather than monotheistic religion. Another, a priest/scientist working in the astronomy department at the Vatican, admits that the Bible is not literally true.

I have always thought of Catholics as one of the more progressive sects of Christianity despite their reputation (as one of the priests point out, the eternal hellfire crap was gotten rid of years ago) and this film tended to reinforce that. But one wonders if the film makes Catholicism seem so laid back in part because Maher was raised Catholic. His - and the film's - harsh stance toward other religions make me suspicious. The film takes a particularly hard line on Islam, insisting that it is a violent religion, to the protestations of the Muslims interviewed on film. 

And this is the part of the film where Maher missteps seriously, allowing his humanist/liberal/progressive politics to come full circle to the other side. Not considering any side of the argument but his own, Maher sets out to prove that Islam is inherently destructive, mostly by showing us the same footage of frightening protests and violence used by the right wing to make essentially the same argument.

He rejects the rather rational explanation that Middle Eastern violence can truly be attributed to politics, with religion more or less an ideological red herring used to rally the masses. This anti-intellectual approach is the opposite of what Maher hopes to achieve with the film, and his failure to realize that there are many schools of thought within Islam – in fact, he almost directly refutes the claim that there are – is the kind of logic which sometimes makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Maher may not be trying to peddle hate – after all, he just wants people to move beyond religion – but he’s dangerously close here in suggesting that all Muslims follow a violent religion and think the same way. This is also the least funny section of the film to boot.

Maher ends the film with a plea that we move beyond religion and embrace humanism before George Bush and Osama bin Laden blow us up with nuclear weapons. It’s a convincing argument Maher makes, that we learned how to completely destroy each other before we learned how to move beyond mythology and make peace, but one wonders if we wouldn’t be trying to kill each other for some other reason if religion didn’t exist. If religion is merely a pretense for political war in the Middle East, then why wouldn’t an overtly political war exist without its pretense of religion?

Religulous is funny but it is not academic in its thoughts or considerations in any way. It is hard even to call it a documentary. Like Larry Charles’s previous film Borat, it is about a character playing pranks on unsuspecting real people. There is little in the way of facts or truly informative discussion in the film, so be wary of those who claim its argument to be sound. Maher’s line of reasoning, like the religion it decries, is not without its contradictions, but unlike religion, it is hilarious.