'The Invention of Lying' Contains Sinister Anti-God Message

By Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights , Protecting Catholicism - October 04, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(185) | (0)
Jeff Field, policy analyst and editor of the Catholic League’s monthly journal, Catalyst, provided Bill Donohue with a review of “The Invention of Lying”; Field saw the movie today in New York City. Here are Donohue’s thoughts on it:

The trailer to the movie gave no indication of its atheistic-themed plot, but there was enough of a buzz about the agenda of screenwriter Ricky Gervais that we decided to check it out. We’re glad we did. “The Invention of Lying” is not the kind of in-your-face assault that Hollywood often serves up, but therein lies its perniciousness: because this anti-religion—make that anti-Christian—film is laced with some romance and humor, the message it sends is all the more sinister.

The movie centers on a world where no one lies. But that changes when the lead character’s mother is dying and the dutiful son finds utility in spinning a tale about a place that resembles heaven, thus saving her from being consigned to an “Eternity of Nothingness.” He subsequently floats the idea that there is a God-like “Man in the Sky,” a belief accepted by most, though some cynics wonder why AIDS exists (it’s never diabetes that Hollywood flags). In mockery, the lead character later shows up looking like a fat Jesus, and an image of him appears on a stained-glass window holding the Two Tablets (of Moses), posing as if on the Cross. In the end, he and his girl are the only two people who haven’t drunk all the moonshine about “The Man in the Sky.”

We at the Catholic League prefer our bigotry straight-up. We don’t like bigotry-lite, which this is not. But we also don’t like it slipped into our drink. It is not for nothing that the Office for Film & Broadcasting of the bishops’ conference slammed the movie as “morally offensive.” But we are pleased to note that the atheists still use our religion as the model, and still portray God as male. There is hope for them yet.
This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
OPINION:'The Invention of Lying' Contains Sinister Anti-God Message

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • MrBook
    a valid criticism

    From this description it sounds like a valid criticism of organized religion .

    - MrBookUS October 4, 2009 6:07PM

    Reply to this Recommend (6) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      What wouldn't to you?

      You can find an argument against religion inside a Pez dispenser. You ignore everything good about religion in your zeal to paint the religious as zealots.

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 4, 2009 6:41PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • MrBook
        Paint

        When did criticism of religion become painting 'the religious as zealots'?

        - MrBookUS October 4, 2009 7:45PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Constantly.

          When you do it incessently and at every possible opportunity.

          You are not hopeless, though.

          http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Theophobia +treatment

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 4, 2009 7:52PM

          Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • MrBook
            bounds

            I am rather critical of the major organized religions, and religion in general... but that is largely confined to areas where it tries to spill out into the observable universe.

            - MrBookUS October 4, 2009 9:51PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              Or in other words...

              When you say "...it tries to spill out into the observable universe", do you mean whenever it is observed by you?

              Other people attack things they detest whenever they observe it also. People like racists and homophobes.

              How does your intolerance differ from theirs, exactly?

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 4, 2009 10:03PM

              Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • MrBook
                debate

                I'm still not sure what you are getting at... this is a debate website, I come here to debate topics that are posted.

                - MrBookUS October 5, 2009 6:32AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • alaskansee
                opposing views

                SolarSanitizer
                I am totally intolerant to pedophiles, and assume all here are. Perhaps you could explain how this makes all, or any of us, "racists and homophobes"?

                I am intolerant of many other despicable things too; the pope telling Africans condoms are worse than aids, 50% of pregnancies ending in termination by god , people who drive in the fast lane when they're the slowest on the road, the list goes on.

                I it still doesn't make me a "racists and homophobes"

                - alaskanseeCA October 6, 2009 4:04PM

                Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • State of Reason
                I think what he meant by spill into the observable universe

                Is when religious people try to enforce their religious views on the non-religious or people of other religions. I don't detest religion I just want it separate from my nations laws, as the founders intended. Funny how Christians love to bash Muslim nations for creating laws based on their faith when Christians are trying to do the same thing here.

                The difference in "intolerance" is that you (using the word you to refer to all religious people who try to push their views on the rest of us) are choosing to push your beliefs on others who don't want it. I'm intolerant of pushy jackasses. If I were intolerant of a certain race or sexual preference because of the way they were born I would be an intolerant jackass. Not wanting you to set laws on me based on your interpretation of your book is not intolerance.

                - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 10:53AM

                Reply to this Recommend (4) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • State of Reason
                To get back on topic

                I haven't seen the movie, but from the review above I can't wait.

                - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 10:54AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • TheCatholicHeretic
                Why argue with MrBook?

                He is not open to other peoples opinions or arguments. He has made up his mind and is completely intolerant of anyone who does not believe as he does. Just read his posts it is blatantly apparent where he stands on most if not all subjects. I read his posts but I do not respond as that would be the same as talking to a wall.

                - TheCatholicHereticUS October 7, 2009 12:48PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • WayOfTheDodo
            Constantly, you say?

            Funny how the Catholic League constantly is whining about any hint of criticism, labeling everything as "bigotry". The persecution complex is quite amazing. Whine, whine, whine. The Catholics don't have the power to simply chop off your head if you don't agree with them, so now they constantly portray themselves as victims despite the fact that their organization is one of the most powerful in the world. Truly pathetic.

            - WayOfTheDodo October 7, 2009 3:54PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              Yeah..

              I was accusing that user of constant and incessant intolerance at anything resembling religion or anyone who identified themselves as religious.

              I am not minimizing the atrocities perpetrated by worshipers throughout history.

              So...

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 4:19PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Khannea Suntzu
      I do not agree

      The movie seems to address the topic of wrongful or deceitful claims . I do not think Religion is that - "lying" - is a psychiatric patient suffering from schizofrenia "lying" when he or she has hallucinations? Of course not. Maybe some of those "religious people" don't really believe in those hallucinatory disorders those real believers suffer from, and are in fact lying, to make money , but I do think these believers sincerely thing in all these outrageous magical things they claim. They aren't lying per se - they are just very sick people that need our help.

      - Khannea SuntzuNL October 7, 2009 5:30PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • quantummechanik
    That wasn't what worried me

    The whole thing about making up "The world is going to end unless you sleep with me!"

    That's sex under some pretty heavy duress. The main character is kind of a rapist....

    - quantummechanikUS October 4, 2009 7:30PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Rice klowN
      Spoiler alert!

      He doesn't sleep with the ready and willing beauty. He was only testing to see if he could use lying to sleep with women. He stopped her after he realized she would actually do it.

      - Rice klowNUS October 5, 2009 8:59AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Submariner
    This.

    A perfect example of how stupid the Catholic League is.

    This is a crappy comdedy peice with another self-deprecating Brit stereotype. One may judge oneself by the quality of ones enemies, me thinks.

    More importantly, it's not bigotry to ask the Emperor why he is naked, even in a shoddy slapstick flick.

    As I reread this, I feel silly even responding to the OP, but, hey, a chance to poo-poo on religion is a chance to poo-poo on religion, eh?

    - Submariner October 5, 2009 12:14AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Curiarte
      If one may judge oneself by the quality...

      ...of one's enemies, and you say the Catholic League is "stupid," (and apparently take any chance to "poo-poo religion ) what exactly does that make you?

      Or to be more clear (and the need for clarification will soon be apparent ;)), by your logic, if you are the enemy of the Catholic league, doesn't that make you "stupid?"

      I'm sure you are not really stupid. I am just pointing out the fallacy of your statement.

      - CuriarteUS October 7, 2009 12:53PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Submariner
        Total less than sum of parts?

        You incorrectly perceive fallacy, here.

        A qualified stupid enemy need not be petty, weak, or isnignifigant. So this point does not follow.

        Also, I don't consider the Catholic League an enemy of myself, but a petulant castigator of truth, reason, and human dignity.

        I'm just a passerby, really.

        - Submariner October 7, 2009 3:40PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Doublecheck
    Good for them!

    I really can't stand religion .

    - DoublecheckUS October 5, 2009 1:18AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      Why not?

      What has ' religion ' done to you?

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 5, 2009 7:55AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Rice klowN
        Name a subject

        And I'll write you a book.

        And you and I both know I could Solar. Hehe

        - Rice klowNUS October 5, 2009 9:01AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Let's call the subject:

          "Things ' religion ' has done to make Rice's life worse, in reverse alphebetical order."

          I want it autographed, co-written, and endorsed by the lovely Sarah Palin.

          Hehe.

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 5, 2009 9:16AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Rice klowN
            That's not a subject

            That's just the title to my upcomig book. I had to haggle with the publisher on letting me make it over a thousand pages. My publisher came to me and said "who do you think you are, Bertrand f-ing Russell?!" haha

            No, Sarah Palin wasn't able to read it for endorsement because her electronic dictionary quit on her... A little over half way through. Reportedly the batteries had claimed a bias against DC and was quiting in order to better spread the message of AC's lethal consequences.

            Funny, haven't heard much about that campaign since the "quiting" episode. Some are starting to speculate it was poor judgement on account of the batteries were not "re-chargeable".

            - Rice klowNUS October 5, 2009 9:35AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              Typos?

              You wrote a book so riddled with typos that her Kindle died trying to parse it?

              Wow, man...

              Your picture reveals that your head is a little too round to mimic that of Earl Russel. lol. (So is mine, btw)

              Accusing Sarah Palin of quitting is a half-truth. She was politically routed by dozens of unfounded ethics charges, all of which dismissed, which were so financially costly that they threatened her family's welfare. It is sad that she had to endure them.

              You might think that this is funny, but I do not.

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 5, 2009 9:49AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Rice klowN
                You don't rememer...

                Those little electronic dictionaries that look like engineering calculators? That's what I was talking about.

                Earl Russell? I said Bertrand Russell, he was a 20th century philosopher. He wrote "the history of western philosophy" and it's longer than most Steven King novels. No idea what he looks like though.

                Actually, yes, I find the story of Sarah Palin to be a non-stop laugh riot. She quit mid-term, maybe if she had two neurons to rub together she could have stayed in office while figuring out how to skirt the ethics complaint... Other politicians do it all the time. She's just a sorry politician. Plain and simple.

                - Rice klowNUS October 5, 2009 10:13AM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • State of Reason
        Directly to me?

        Stole many hours of my life wasted in mass and various church stuff.
        Lied to me about many things that minimal research as an adult have disproved.
        Forced morality legislation on me based on a religion I don't believe in.
        Kept me from buying beer on Sundays for gods sake (literally) because some Christian conservative idiots feel the need to keep me from drinking while they're in church.

        I could go on but in realistically the things religion has done to me directly are minimal and mostly trivial in comparison to the things religion has done to the world.
        The Crusades (multiple)
        Witch trials (multiple)
        The Dark Ages (where would we be today if science hadn't been squelched by religion for hundreds of years?)
        Enforcing morals on the poor and ignorant that the religious elite were not expected to follow.
        Child rape and cover up.
        Keeping people from birth control when that could be the one thing that would help them get out of poverty and control rampant AIDS .

        And that's just (mostly) Christianity. I could be here all day listing the horrible things other religions have done. Sure, they've done some good things too but what positive thing can you do to make up for nearly 1000 years of holding back science and medicine ?

        - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 11:14AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          I am going to fucus on the

          Part of your comment that stayed on-topic.

          "Stole many hours of my life wasted in mass and various church stuff.
          Lied to me about many things that minimal research as an adult have disproved.
          Forced morality legislation on me based on a religion I don't believe in.
          Kept me from buying beer on Sundays for gods sake (literally) because some Christian conservative idiots feel the need to keep me from drinking while they're in church."

          Why were you in mass and various church stuff? Were you forced? Coerced? Or did you volunteer?

          What lies?

          Legislators write laws, not priests. I don't like legislated morality either, but you misplace the blame.

          I lived in a dry state also. Thought it was stupid to not be able to by beer on Sunday. Other states have different laws. Are you chained to a concrete block?

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 11:33AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • State of Reason
            lol

            You make some good points here.
            I was coerced, by my parents. It was understood that as long as I lived with them I would go to church with them. I don't hold it against them. If I believed my kids would spend eternity in hell if they didn't go to church I'd make them go to church too. I blame the church that put the ideas in their head.

            The lies about creation, heaven, hell, the age of the world, sex , birth control, people of other faiths, evolution etc etc

            Yes, legislators write laws but far too often they're doing it based on what their priests or fundamentalist supporters have told them. See previous comments about gay marriage and blue laws.

            Nope, not chained to anything but I also don't make my decisions on where I'm going to live solely based on when I can buy beer. I think if I did that it would be pretty solid proof that I have a drinking problem. ;) I prefer to leave that question in doubt.

            - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 1:52PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              So do you.

              I can see how you would be angry at your church .

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 2:08PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • State of Reason
                Funny thing is. . .

                I had a very moderate church . Had some great priests and a fantastic monsignor. They focused more on the positive things Jesus did and how we should help the poor and needy and not judge, that's gods job. It was when I grew up and learned of what organized religions did worldwide that really turned me off.

                - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 2:19PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • State of Reason
            But

            I would say that my comments about what religion has done to the world as a whole are more on topic than you're giving them credit for. At least as far as where the topic has gone, though all of this talk is off topic from discussing the movie. :)

            - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 1:56PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              heheh

              Can you blame me for trying to avoid that list! Cripes!

              What is that a picture of? Looks like a guy in a chair with a poncho liner on?

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 2:10PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • State of Reason
                agreed

                I try not to think about it too much. Certainly loads of horrible things have been done without using religion as a basis too. Maybe we'll get to talk about that in another thread.

                The picture is looking up a tree with a bunch of cool mushrooms on it. Took that on a great camping trip with my brother and uncle.

                - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 2:22PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ttut21
    Why

    Why isn't it wrong to make fun of the old Greek gods like Zeus or Apollo?
    They were just as believed in as Christ, God or yet in many movies, set in ancient Greece, the "good guy" character taunts these gods. Why no uproar about that?

    Is the christian religion becoming just as outlandish as these old obsolete religions?

    - ttut21US October 5, 2009 7:48AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

      Those who revere the Greek gods (whoever they are) probably don't like their gods to be made fun of. When those religions were prevalent, blasphemy against them /WAS/ a big deal.

      How does that mean that Catholicism is "becoming just as outlandish as these old obsolete religions?" Because the followers give voice to their disdain at the 'making fun of' their god ? The Islamic also do not take kindly to Allah being made fun of. (Or even Allah's face being drawn, for that matter) Are they outlandish also for the same reason?

      This seems to be the opposite of outlandish. It seems to be normal behavior for the devout.

      Do you really argue that because there is no mainstream Polytheism outcry against movies like 'Troy', that when modern Catholics voice outcry over this movie, they are bing outlandish?

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 5, 2009 8:10AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • ttut21
        OUTLANDISH!

        It's more an observation to point out how religions come and go. This indeed would've been a big deal to the citizens of that time and yet means nothing to us now. The religion is a "myth." (mythology) How could you not question any and all religions after looking at these great failed religions. Many of which would still be practiced much more fully had the christian nations not forced it on the nations they conquered, a lot like the polytheistic Greeks.

        Sorry I had to clear that up (if I did)


        - ttut21US October 5, 2009 5:03PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Crystal Clear

          I understand exactly you are saying. I think you are missing a step in the evolution of religion .

          1) The religion is born.

          2) The religion is.

          3) The religion dies (or is killed).

          Christianity is in stage 2. as are many others. It is alive and well.

          "How could you not question any and all religions after looking at these great failed religions."

          So they failed. Even you admit, in your next breath, that other religions were forced out. They did not necessarily die out due to some type of sudden enlightenment of the believers. Most were outlawed. With severe punishment.

          So, the mere fact that ancient religions are no longer mainstream does nothing to disprove religion.

          How is that for clarity.

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 5, 2009 5:21PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • alaskansee
            when you're right

            Yes, I agree, the mass grave of deities does nothing to disprove religion , nor does it help prove religion. I think this argument in defense of religion is called Russell's teapot, you can't prove there isn't a teapot (full, I think, of hot tea) in orbit around the sun. Russell was a great man but I don't believe in his teapot, of Santa, or Yahweh, or Thor, or Oden, or anyother proof-less myth.

            But let's face it, if that's you defense you've not got much have you?

            Sort of a weak Pascal's wager but as you stand by the mass grave common sense must make you wonder if you've bet on the right horse. Better odds than the lottery but not much.

            - alaskanseeCA October 6, 2009 5:40PM

            Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              Trying to quantify religion with the rules of science,

              Is not unlike trying to measure the temperature on the moon with a microscope and a yardstick.

              The proof of religion is faith, which comes from within; the proof of science is evidence, comes from without.

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 6, 2009 7:14PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • ttut21
                Faith

                Faith--a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
                To base your life around something that you have to proof to believe in and and still believe it crazy to me...

                (my version)Faith-- Wishful thinking.

                - ttut21US October 6, 2009 11:47PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • MC Napsalot
                Faith is proof of nothing

                Faith exists interdependent of proof. It exists in lieu of proof. One has faith in things that are not provable or disprovable. If "proof" exists for a thing, then faith is not needed.

                - MC NapsalotUS October 7, 2009 2:17PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • quantummechanik
      It'd be interesting

      I was saddened at the lack of Gods in Troy, because they were in the Iliad. However, something that might've happened, and this isn't outside the realm of possibility, Christians might interpret that as blasphemous because now it's "Hollywood encouraging polytheism". I remember Harry Potter.

      - quantummechanikUS October 6, 2009 12:17PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Rice klowN
    Stupidity, like a black hole in a lighted room

    You know, I read this drivel about how "anti-Christian" something is that is marketed to Brittish and Amerucan audience and all I can think is: For what purpose would you compare something to a religion that the audience wouldn't understand?

    I saw this movie on Saturday, and I you actually have to be familiar with Christianity to get the references. If it were to reference any other religion, I can promise you most of the audience wouldn't get the references. If it were say Hinduism, the religious comparisons would have been totally lost on me.

    So if I were to make this movie and stay as subtle as this movie was, I wouldn't have changed a thing.

    My girlfriend and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you made a movie where no one ever knew how to lie, why would religion even exist? If you can't lie, then how can speak of the supernatural at all? You can't.

    In the world of "Lying", no one knows of any afterlife, so they assume death is death.

    This OP is lame because it is offended that religion doesn't exist in a world of absolute honesty.

    If your offended by that, please explain to me what religion would exist in a world of honesty... I'll bet you it's your religion that you claim. Who would be apart of a religion they thought was a lie? If you think Christianity would be it, then elaborate on which church has it right... Is it also your church?

    The thing is, all religion is based in part on a lie at some point along the theological train, so a world of absolute honesty could not generate supernatural ponderance without hard proof.

    - Rice klowNUS October 5, 2009 9:21AM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • State of Reason
      Finally!

      Someone who saw the movie and has something to say about the post we're supposed to be debating.

      I haven't seen it but would add .

      MOVIES ARE IMAGINARY (much like religion )
      Why do you care if movie people believe in your god or your faith or anything? In Transformers, people believe in giant transforming sentient robots! Do you? Who cares? In Harry Potter people fly on brooms. It's fake! CGI. The whole thing is made up to entertain. Watch a movie to be entertained by it. Nobody who's worth anything bases their world view or afterlife view on a fictional movie. Get over it people.

      - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 11:33AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • caelum
    Whiners

    Why must religious fundamentalists whine constantly about movies? We're sorry not every single film is "The Passion of the Christ." Is there really such insecurity about their faith they care what some silly movie thinks? Quite pathetic if you ask me.

    - caelumUS October 5, 2009 9:46AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      It stems from angst at repeated displays of intolerence.

      Imagine if you will, every tenth movie being about gaybashing. How do you think the homosexual community would feel?

      Would you call them whiners when they disapprove? Would you call them insecure for their protests?

      I don't understand why it is socially acceptable to marginalize the religious. So what if some people do not understand religion , don't hate what you don't understand. Is this not a valid message?

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 6, 2009 11:08AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • caelum
        Unjust Comparison

        You actually can't compare them. Mockery of ideas held by a group are acceptable in every form because you have a legitimate form of disagreement. Mockery of someone's biology is hardily comparable since it is illogical and derived from irrational hatred, rather than disagreement concerning reality.

        I mean, do you regularly mock woman for developing breasts? Mock a dog for a tail? Of course not, because it's nonsensical. In the same sense mockery of a homosexual is nonsensical since its well established it is biological in origin (although the entire biology of it isn't understood).

        I can mock a communist for having a distorted view of the world, but I wouldn't mock an African-American for being black because, well, he's black. It's nonsensical.

        The insecurity point derives from insecurity about a belief. No one isn't sure whether or not they are homosexual or whether or not they are human.

        And it's socially acceptable because it's socially acceptable to ridicule believes of all forms, and religion is particularly easy to do so because in the modern world is seems absurd.

        Try making the comparison to actually something comparable, like believing in the tooth fairly. That would be worthy of mockery. Even a movie mocking atheist beliefs would be fine and if people complained I'd call them whiners just as well.

        - caelumUS October 6, 2009 12:12PM

        Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Tolerence.

          I suppose that if you understood what being devout was like, you would not be so intolerant of those that do.

          Just because you do not get it, does not make it fake.

          Billions of humans are religious. According to you, they are all practicing absurdity.

          Seems a little pompous to me.

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 6, 2009 12:47PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • caelum
            Intolerent?

            You mistake intolerance for my indifference to attacks on a belief. No belief is subject to special protection, immunity from criticism, or mockery. Calling it religion doesn't shield it from criticism and mockery. By you definition, I'd be intolerant to atheists and agnostics because I could care less if they are attacked for their beliefs or mocked. The only time I care is if the attacks, mockery, and criticism don't actually engage the argument and instead are designed as character assassination, without actually justifying the assassination of the character.

            - caelumUS October 6, 2009 1:12PM

            Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • emikoala
              Well said

              Religious beliefs are no more exempted from examination and potential criticism and even mockery than any other belief.

              Intolerance is a heavy word for mockery of beliefs. Intolerance would involve attempting to deprive the religious of their right to be religious and hold religious beliefs, refusing to associate with religious people, treating religious people as second-class citizens, or banning all religious movies.

              Similarly, intolerance would also describe attempting to deprive the irreligious of their right to be irreligious and not hold religious beliefs, refusing to associate with irreligious people, treating irreligious people as second-class citizens, or banning all irreligious movies.

              - emikoalaUS October 7, 2009 10:36AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Jerica
                Intolerance

                I think you don't quite understand the definition of intolerance. When tolerate something, you're basically putting up with something you don't like. You're allowing it even though you don't WANT to. This includes mockery. Mockery is a form of not tolerating something. When you see an obese person and call them "fat" you're being intolerant of their existence because you are making fun of them instead of keeping your mouth shut and allowing them to live without being attacked or derided. Intolerance isn't relegated to ONLY depriving an obese person of say, food in an attempt to stop their obesity .

                - JericaUS October 7, 2009 11:31AM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • State of Reason
                And

                Intolerance would also include trying to create legislation based on religious beliefs and trying to force the non-religious (or those of other religions) to follow the tenets of your faith. Now, which side here is intolerant?

                - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 11:48AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Jerica
              Indifference

              Are you indifferent to attacks on others' beliefs only or are you also indifferent to attacks on your own beliefs?

              - JericaUS October 7, 2009 11:26AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • State of Reason
            I understand

            I was once religious too. Then I grew up, learned a bit about the real world and got over it. I completely understand what it's like to be devout. I get it. It's fake. Yes, they're all practicing absurdity.

            Even if they're not practicing absurdity though I completely agree with caelum's point. It's a belief, a thought process, a world view and like other world views (communism, capitalism , American exceptionalism) it is open to mockery and debate. Someone who doesn't believe can state that and debate it and as a believer you can debate it back.

            If Michael Moore were to say capitalism is a farce (you know, hypothetically) he can say that. People who believe capitalism is great can say that too. They then get into a debate based on facts, history, and their opinion. All part of freedom of speech . It's great isn't it? The trouble with religion is that when you're trying to debate it all you have is opinion, no facts, so I can understand why that would make you defensive.

            - State of ReasonUS October 7, 2009 11:46AM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Jerica
          Biology

          The weird thing is, we DO mock biology constantly. We mock disabled people, the elderly, women with small breasts, obese people, mentally challenged people, pale people, we mock women who choose to have underarm or leg hair instead of shaving it off (in effect mocking them for growing hair at all!), we mock people for height, size, shape, color. We mock gay people. We mock races and all sorts of things that aren't necessarily within the control of a person.

          You're right that it's nonsensical, but you're wrong because people do it all the time.

          I don't think it is kind to mock anyone for any reason, whether philosophical or biological. I think if you don't understand something, you are bound to dislike or fear it and I think many people who don't like religion have personal reasons for it which are their own and can span many ideas and conditions and philosophies. Mocking the religious is no better than mocking the non religious. We must be tolerant of all people. If we only tolerate that which we already agree, we are not tolerating anything at all. We're accepting. Tolerance means putting up with something you DON'T agree with or like.

          - JericaUS October 7, 2009 11:24AM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • alaskansee
        gays and theists together at last

        poor little christians oppressed and downtrodden, no right to marry, no freedom to openly express their feelings, no powerful lobby groups, no tax breaks,.......... oh wait that's not right!

        - alaskanseeCA October 6, 2009 4:14PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          Does Canada have a Christian problem

          Which upsets you?

          Are you chained to a block of concrete?

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 6, 2009 4:50PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • alaskansee
            see previous comment

            I would refer you to the previous comment

            "am rather critical of the major organized religions, and religion in general... but that is largely confined to areas where it tries to spill out into the observable universe."

            If you have unsubstantiated views then keep them to yourself and we'll all be fine. If on the other hand you have something useful.....

            I guess the "hutterites" (I may have got their gang name wrong) might be considered a problem in Canada. When you've got such a small gene pool you will inevitable have problems. This is not however something that could be considered in the non-observable universe despite not being visible. We can't allow people to put their children 's welfare behind there mystical friend.

            Also see other comment re politicians wife.

            - alaskanseeCA October 6, 2009 5:14PM

            Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              I'll keep all of my views as public as possible, kthx.

              In America, we have the freedom to speak our minds.

              You didn't answer the questions and that is rude.

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 6, 2009 5:48PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • alaskansee
                answered?

                Please note: comments to be read in a cheerful Scottish accent with a smile, try to project your anger on that!

                I did, but to reiterate, I don't think we do. Well we do but very small compared to the US

                Also I may not have been clear, my apologies. You and any other Scientologist, FSM worshiper, or (insert your favorite god here) CAN express their opinions freely. It's the moment when the rest of the population has to accommodate them is when you go too far.

                I will eat during Ramadan, I will not pray 5 times a day, I will not kill people who have lost the faith.

                - alaskanseeCA October 6, 2009 6:12PM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Jerica
              Useful to whom?

              "f you have unsubstantiated views then keep them to yourself and we'll all be fine. If on the other hand you have something useful....."

              Who gets to decide if a view is "useful" or not? YOU? Why only you? Why should you get to decide when a person can speak and what they can say? Sounds like you advocate censorship . Or maybe you're an authoritarian.

              - JericaUS October 7, 2009 11:34AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • alaskansee
                earlier apology

                Thanks for the reality check but you're too late, I've already apologized to Solar Sanitizer from my error. Freedom of speech is important and freedom to criticise religion is in there too. As I'm defending this I should be more aware, doh!

                Although, now you remind me it was SS that had been critical of the freedom of speech of others to critise relgion so I was caught by a censor trying to censor. That's what this thread is about after all. Oh what fun.


                - alaskanseeCA October 7, 2009 12:11PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • mr average
        what's good for the goose...

        Imagine if you will that every day of the week there are television shows beamed all around the planet and live events attracting millions of people all over the world during which the views and lifestyles of atheists , agnostics, humanists, materialists, gays , hindus, buddhists, and other non- Christians are condemmned as being sinful, heretical, worthy of eternal damnation, and constantly portrayed as threats to our way of life and the survival of our nation. How do you think the non-christian community would feel?

        Would you call them whiners when they disapprove? Would you call them insecure for their protests?

        I don't understand why Christians think that it is socially acceptable to marginalize the non-religious or non-christians. So what if they don't understand atheism or wiccans or faiths other than chrstianity, don't hate what you don't understand. Is this not a valid message?

        - mr averageUS October 7, 2009 12:19PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • SolarSanitizer
          I don't understand it either.

          I think religious intolerance towards others is just as bad as intolerance towards the religious.

          "Don't hate what you don't understand. Is this not a valid message?"

          Yep.

          That is a fantastic message. One I tell my angry, intolerant, religion -hating comrades here on this very site.

          They reply, and I paraphrase, "It is ok to be mean, and rude to the religious, because religion is not something I believe."

          So, here I am, pointing out to these individuals, how their behavior is intolerant. What makes this especially fun for me is knowing that I am not a very religious person. in fact I have not been in a church in over a decade. I also have sex out of wedlock. A lot. But I am over-sharing.

          - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 12:27PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • mr average
            It's not so simple

            In our culture is IS socially acceptable to crticize anyone who does not agree with one's beliefs. It's all very well to say that we shouldn't do it, but that is part of what makes us human. We argue over favorite sports teams, television shows, political policies, etc.

            I have no real problem with people disagreeing over religious subjects. I DO have a problem with people and institutions that react in shock and surprise when someone dares to criticize their religion when their religion has been crticizing non-believers and people of different faiths since the very begining.

            The fact is that religion is based on intolerance - intolerance of other religions, intolerance of other dogmas, etc. It has to be because every religion asserts that it alone hold the TRUTH. Sure, there are degrees of tolerance between religions, but religion by its very nature of being an assertion of ultimate truth about things which are inherently unkowable and unprovable(the origin of the universe, why we're here, what appens when we die, etc.) has to be intolerant of other different views and assertion of truth. You either believe the dogma or you don't. If everything is equally valid, and all of these things contradict each other, then nothing is true.

            I think it's incredibly nieve to think that we should be able to stop arguing about relgion and non-religion, especially since this topic is so basic to who we are and how we view the world. I thik that the point is not to try to end intolerance - that's inherent to who and what we and our religions are. The real point is to try to realize that the faults relgious folks crticize in others - intolerance of religious values for example - are the very same kinds of faults that religious folks are guilty of. Chrsitians shouldn't be so shocked when atheists "bash" Chrisitnaity. It's simply a revesal of the same sort of bashing of atheists that Christians have done for centuries.

            What is good for the goose is good for the gander...

            - mr averageUS October 7, 2009 12:54PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • SolarSanitizer
              Then what is good for the gander, good for the goose?

              I don't like the thought of the cycle, but your argument supports its continuance.

              My first post in this thread, and the point I have tried however successfully or unsuccessfully to maintain is rather simple. Not all religious are intolerant against the nonreligious, nor vice-versa. But when there is displays of the intolerance, it should be pointed out. As you state, one's chosen decision on religion is a major part of who they are. In many cases, especially with the devout, it IS who they are. Attacking that is not unlike attacking the fact that a gay person is gay. But these few people say, and I paraphrase, "Homosexuality is not a decision, as is religion, so it is afforded dissimilar social protection." Homophobes do not really understand that homosexuality isn't a choice just like these ... theophobes? do not seem to understand how central their religion is to a devout person.

              There is little quarter for this line of thought on this site. I understand that. I don't have to like it, but I get it.

              Maybe turnabout is fair play, as you allude.

              - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 1:15PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • mr average
                Crticism = "intolerance" ?

                I don't know about your statement "...when there is displays of the intolerance, it should be pointed out." In principle, yes maybe...in practice? Not sure.

                The thing is that people have this tendency to react in an unthinking, knee-jerk way to criticism. Criticism of African- Americans or black culture is reflexively labeled " racist ", criticism of Israel’s policies is reflexively labeled as anti-Semitic, criticism of the Catholic Church is labeled anti-Christian, criticism of Christianity and Christians is labeled as intolerant, etc. etc. (Yes, I'm generalizing) This sort of reflexive labeling makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of the criticism.

                In the case of this movie (which I have not seen), it appears to me that the premise may be a legitimate critique of religion . It certainly appears to reflect the view of religion that many non-religious people have. If religious people find the idea that some people view religion as a lie to be insulting or “intolerant”, well, that’s tough.

                Instead of wasting time protesting about how this view is “intolerant”, wouldn’t the religious organization’s time and effort be better spent refuting the argument? The thing is, that’s much harder to do than to simply protests that the critique is “intolerant”. Rather than dealing with the criticism and demonstrating how and why the criticism is invalid, the motives and character of the filmmaker are impugned. Defeat the criticism by tearing down its source.

                Pointing out criticism as “intolerant” does nothing to advance the cause of the entity being criticized. It only deflects the attention of readers, viewers, etc. away from the evaluation of the criticism/behavior/point of view. It’s a distraction.





                - mr averageUS October 7, 2009 2:20PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ufcarazy
    Relgion and Honesty

    Comedy often involves role-reversals. For example, bumbling cops and big guys who are afraid of little things make people laugh. Since studies have shown that religious people are more honest than non-religious people, perhaps there it is logical to portray the religious as dishonest in order to make people laugh.

    - ufcarazyUS October 7, 2009 10:41AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • paladin713
      honesty?

      Care to provide a citation for those 'studies'?

      - paladin713US October 7, 2009 10:59AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • ufcarazy
        "Studies"...

        Here are some of the peer-reviewed scientific articles.

        Chaudhry, Haroon Rashid; International Review of Psychiatry, Vol 20(5), Oct, 2008. Special issue: Psychiatry in Asia. pp. 477-483.

        Randolph-Seng, Brandon; Nielsen, Michael E.; International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol 17(4), 2007. pp. 303-315.

        Hyde, Rachel E.; Weathington, Bart L.; Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, Vol 132(2), May, 2006. pp. 151-190.

        Saroglou, Vassilis; Pichon, Isabelle; Trompette, Laurence; Verschueren, Marijke; Dernelle, Rebecca; Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol 44(3), Sep, 2005. pp. 323-348.

        Kothari, Saroj; Psycho-Lingua, Vol 24(2), Jul, 1994. pp. 65-72.

        Ban, Joseph D.; Religious Education, Vol 81(2), Spr, 1986. pp. 225-238.

        Wolfe, Gayle; Mourribi, Alia; The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 125(6), Dec, 1985. pp. 781-782.


        - ufcarazyUS October 7, 2009 11:54AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          1st article cited...

          The 1st article abstract says the following about honesty.

          "Spiritual practices foster an awareness that serves to identify and promote values such as creativity, patience, perseverance, honesty, kindness..."

          No mention of religious people being "more honest".

          Moving on to article 2...

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:05PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          2nd article cited...

          The 2nd article was about 'priming' and honesty. This study showed that 'priming' a religious person with 'religious words' caused them to cheat less on given tasks then if they had not been primed. No word on the rate of cheating by non-beleivers because THEY WERE NOT IN THE STUDY!

          So that's 2 articles irrevelant to the discussion.

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:12PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • whocares
            Are you sure?

            Actually the effect of priming religious words was found no matter if the participants were religious or not. The effect was a general effect across all participants. Nevertheless, this really does not have anything to do with the question of if religious people are more honest.

            - whocaresUS November 2, 2009 4:22PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • paladin713
              Thank You

              I don't have time to go back and re-read the abstract but I have no reason to doubt you. Thank you for correcting me.

              - paladin713US November 2, 2009 5:15PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          3rd article cited...

          Copied directly from the abstract...

          "Results suggested varying relationships between value placement and work attitudes. The authors discussed implications and directions for future research."

          That's 3 irrevelant articles...anyone starting to see a pattern?

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:24PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          4th article cited...

          The fourth article detailed reactions to "hypothetical daily hassles". lol

          The only thing it has to say about honestly is the following...

          "Other results from the studies suggested that the prosociality of religious people is not an artifact of gender, social desirability bias , security in attachment, empathy, or honesty."

          And once again, non-religious individuals were not a part of the study in any way, shape, or form.

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:33PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          5th article cited...

          I'll let you read the entire abstract. Can someone tell me where it says religious people are more honest than non-religious people?

          Kothari, Saroj. 1994. “Impact of Religion Upon Development of Moral Concepts.” Psycho Lingua vol. 24, pp. 65-72.
          Abstract: Examined the impact of religion upon different moral concepts. The study was conducted on 1,249 7th-graders. The Moral Concept Development Test was administered and the statistical technique of ANOVA and a t test were used. For the purpose of this study, the 10 moral concepts of duty, truth, responsibility, judgement, discrimination between good and bad, sympathy, respect, obedience, helpfulness, and honesty were selected. Results show that the students belonging to Hindu, Islam, Christian, and Jain religious groups differed significantly from one another in duty, truth, responsibility, judgement, sympathy, obedience, helpfulness, and over all moral scores, but they did not differ significantly in discrimination between good and bad, respect, and honesty moral scores. [Source: PI]

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:41PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • paladin713
          6th and 7th articles cited...

          I'm not even going to look up the 6th and 7th. If the 1st five are any indication I'd just be wasting more of my time.

          I find it ironic that a person who claims religious people are more honest than non-religious would dishonestly cite peer-reviewed articles that have nothing to do with his claim.

          - paladin713US October 7, 2009 12:44PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • ufcarazy
            studies

            I suggest reading the studies. They also contain citations to other articles if this topic interests you.

            - ufcarazyUS October 7, 2009 12:56PM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • paladin713
              studies

              I'll say this one last time. The studies you cited HAVE NO BEARING ON YOUR CLAIM. Either cite studies that DIRECTLY SUPPORT your claim or stop wasting my time.

              - paladin713US October 7, 2009 1:03PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • bartolomeo7
    antigod

    Hillary Clinton thinks the male god is offensive and misogynistic. The cross was removed from the veteran's monument, but Hillary Clinton is trying to coerce Buddhism on Barry Titus, with the Dalai Lama's help. This has not been reported by the media for sixteen years.I myself am an atheist, and do not like religion because it is used as justification to punish people. I have a personal god, though, God.

    - bartolomeo7US October 7, 2009 10:42AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • WayOfTheDodo
      Atheist?

      If you believe in God, you are not an Atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Merely not being part of a religion does not make you an Atheist if you are still superstitious.

      - WayOfTheDodo October 8, 2009 10:59AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • bartolomeo7
        atheist two

        Formally and philosophically and sociologically, I believe there is no God. Personally, I entertain a myth that there is one.I accept your comment that I am still superstitious.

        - bartolomeo7US October 8, 2009 11:18AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • paladin713
    Bigotry?

    If criticizing faith is bigotry then so is criticizing political beliefs. Please stop pretending that religion has some special status where it is off-limits.

    Also, while belief in God may be faith-based, most religious texts are not. The Christian Bible for example proports to explain truths about the physical world. These 'truths' are refuted by observable reality. This gives it a big fat bulls-eye for the peircing arrows of ridicule.

    Hard for beleivers to swallow? Yes.
    Bigotry? No.

    - paladin713US October 7, 2009 10:57AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Jerica
      Definition

      Bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

      While some religious folks may be bigots, it does not mean that non religious folks aren't. As you can see, a bigot can be someone who stubbornly disregards others' opinions as well as beliefs and creeds. This can apply to anyone.

      If you go around mocking and attacking religions because they differ from what you believe and you think they're wrong, you're a bigot by definition.

      - JericaUS October 7, 2009 11:38AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • paladin713
        Definition

        By that definition everyone is a bigot.

        - paladin713US October 7, 2009 11:55AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • SolarSanitizer
        Yep.

        I agree.

        - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 1:37PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • kylo1
        While your definition may be true

        It doesn't explain why the Catholic League claims this movie contains bigotry. I have not seen the movie yet, but I assume they don't mention idiot bible -thumpers. I would see a phrase like that as bigotry, but if you simply show another side to a story, it certainly is not.

        - kylo1US October 7, 2009 2:25PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • CivilRadiant
    Every year...

    Every year less people are naive enough to believe in a " god ".

    This is a good thing.

    It stems from our ability to explain more and more.

    Eventually we won't need to use fairy tales to make ourselves feel better.

    - CivilRadiantUS October 7, 2009 11:05AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • SolarSanitizer
      If a thousand people "wake up", every year.

      In a few million years there will be no more religious people.

      - SolarSanitizerUS October 7, 2009 1:36PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • kylo1
        It's a bit more than that

        In the US in March 2009 an ARIS survey found that 15% has no religion . In 1990 it was 8.2%. That means in less than 20 years, the numbers of non-religious people nearly doubled. That is millions who become non-religious each year.

        - kylo1US October 7, 2009 2:31PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • beinghuman
        So called religion how many years left

        Hope in less a time eh. Atheism, humanism and secularism is on the rise in the United kingdom, more than any one realises. We are on the march.
        Man or woman, beast or spirit, whatever an invisible being this is
        Who can prove it is any of these. No one I think.
        Get the world in good shape before letting religion take your money for their own means.
        Abusive priests, let the Church get rfid of them before they try and keep the population under their grasp.

        - beinghumanGB October 8, 2009 8:29AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • ScottyNow
          HMM

          What if the rise of humanism, athiesm, and secularism caused the fall of the United Kingdom? It seems that Islam is making some pretty good progress too.

          The rise of islam , humanism, atheism, and secularism is proof enough that the Church is a completely voluntary organization, even if it is rank with corruption. Keep your money and your life, if that's what makes you happy.

          Humanist government , now there is a corrupt organization that takes money & keeps things under their grasp-taxing the very air we breathe!

          - ScottyNowUS October 9, 2009 3:23PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • beinghuman
            So called religion how many years left

            Scottynow I did not say there is a Humanist Government in UK no it is run by the Church. Church is not a voluntary organisation and does not make money , I cannot belong to a synogue unless I had money to pay . Although in the bible I am told I will go to hell.
            Go see Ricky Gervais in The Inv ention of Lying then you will understand shat religion is all about, an invention.
            By the way I have no money but if I had as much as all these rich celebrities and the Vatican I would make sure no child was dying from starvation and lack of water .
            I do not agree with ISlam and anyway it is a religion so you have made my point for me.
            How about the pope liv ing in luxury . Just round the corner from him children are trying to survive on rubbish dumps.

            - beinghumanGB October 10, 2009 8:13AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • ScottyNow
              So Sorry

              There is so much bad in the best of us, and so much good in the worst of us, that it doesn't behoove any of us to talk about the rest of us!

              My pitty for the UK just increased. There are countries where you can exercise any religion you like--including humanism. I was under the impression that the UK was among the free countries, but it seems I may have been wrong. Has your residence in a heartless nation kept you from finding TRUE freedom?

              I understand that you did not say there is a humanist government in UK, but I did. The Church of England never ran the UK. England's human centered government has run the Church of England since King Henry VIII established it for his own pride and pleasure. So if any church misrepresents the the potential of TRUE faith, the human-centered Church of England does.

              Perhaps you'll consider the possibility of the humanan centered perspective that is destroying England, the Church of England, the UK, and the whole world?

              Contrary to any humanist or religious confusion, the Bible reveals a simple path to a place in our hearts that fills us and our world with love, joy and peace that can overcome all human suffering. Your concern for the poor and needy is proof of that place in your heart. Many who CLAIM to worship Jesus have lost that path, but the path remains.

              You may find that path some day, if you turn away from your hypercritical attitude toward others and search for TRUTH.

              - ScottyNowUS October 13, 2009 4:06PM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • beinghuman
                so called religion sorry

                I am sorry too. I think we should end this now as whatever say you will find something to contriatict it in the bible . Lets agree to agree that this conversation is going no where.
                Your bible seems to dislike a lot of people, thought they were all made in a gods image.\but you are entitled to your views as I am entitled to mine. Lets make this a better world for everyone just be kind and good and you can ask for no more.
                Bye Scottynow

                - beinghumanGB October 14, 2009 8:20AM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Roy Humanist
    The biggest lie ever.

    The premise of the movie was that in this alternative world, people could not lie, until Ricky Gervais invented lying. So where do you take that? Why not demonstrate the effect of the biggest lie ever, "The existance of God". I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

    - Roy HumanistUS October 7, 2009 11:40AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ScottyNow
    What if?

    What if there is no Transcendent God? Then the primis of this movie answers a valid question. Did people make up the idea of " god " to feel better about their meaningless existence? Those who start with the assumption there is no Transcendent God, have no better explanation for the phenomenon.

    What if there is a Transcendent God? Then the fearful response of the review is just as absurd as the premise of the movie! How would we know anything avout this Transcendent God? The personal and historic power of REAL Christianity is that the Transcendent God pursues the very creatures that hate him and deny his existence, and then makes them better people.

    If the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, would he be intimidated by this kind anti-God message? No! So why are the people who claim to worship him trembling? Maybe the critics have proven that the worshippers are not REAL, but they have not settled their arguement with God.

    REAL Christianity thrives in the face of this kind of bigotry. Bring it on!

    - ScottyNowUS October 7, 2009 12:43PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • VulcanTourist
    Hypocrisy, again

    So what if the movie contains an anti-religious subtext? Aren't both children and adults subjected to more than an adequate amount of Christian and other religious propaganda? This is what the doctrine of free speech is all about. The producers and actors and promoters of this movie aren't employed by the government , so even if it does contain anti-theistic sentiments it's not a Constitutional or "fairness" issue.

    Nope, this is one highly propagandistic organization, the Catholic League, crying foul when someone else MIGHT have created propaganda that MIGHT compete with their own. Get over yourselves and give up this ridiculous I'm-a-victim routine... religion has created far more victims than it has received.

    - VulcanTouristUS October 7, 2009 12:51PM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • dwcongdon
    God is not male

    The author from the Catholic League is a theological imbecile who should be publicly reprimanded by his bishop or other ecclesiastical authority. Christianity has never taught that God has a gender or is sexually differentiated. Such notions are absolutely heretical. God, according to Christian teaching, is totally beyond any creaturely distinction or attribute. To ascribe a gender distinction to God is thus to turn God into a creature, which is idolatry.

    In short, this piece is theological trash. The Catholic League should come forward and apologize for undermining their own faith.

    - dwcongdonUS October 7, 2009 1:28PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • burma87
    Can't wait!

    As a card carrying member of Freedom from Religion, I can't wait to see this now. Thanks for the heads up!

    - burma87US October 7, 2009 4:53PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • atliberty
    not even in the same realm


    god is just something that men made up. man certainly made god in the image of himself. god is not even in the same realm of nature and the health well being and longevity of our species on this beautiful planet. you can believe in god and still believe in and work toward the health well being and longevity of our species and life on this planet or you can not believe in god, it does not matter compared to love god is irrelevent. then we could be capable of beyond light speed and breaking the barrier of time space and matter to become one with the unified field. It will take a collective cooperative effort for biological mammal creatures but I believe…

    PL&H ken

    - atlibertyUS October 7, 2009 8:52PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • tlhall
    "Bigotry" ?

    I'd like to thank "Catholic league" for this nice write-up.
    This sounds like a good movie to help inoculate my kids against the irrationality that religion is so infamous for having made respectable in our culture.

    The non-existence of 'the supernatural' is not just an opinion; it's a fact. To call this position 'bigotry' is kind of weird.

    - tlhallUS October 10, 2009 2:12PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Jacqueline
      Bigotry...yeah, right.

      Pot, meet Kettle. That is what we should be saying to religious organizations like the Catholic League. Centuries of depriving women of their human and civil rights because of the "original sin"; electionizing in the pulpits to effect lawmakers resulting in "conscientious objector" laws which permit pharmacists to REFUSE to fill women's contraceptive prescriptions...one notorious case entailed an 18 yr old rape victim from Lancaster County, PA who was denied access to Plan B (emergency contraception. When half of the human race (women and girls) are denied full autonomy and body integrity as if our uteruses were the property of the church and state (and men, whom will NEVER have to be pregnant), the Catholic League has NO room to whine about anti-Christian bigotry.

      - JacquelineUS October 30, 2009 4:58AM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...