The basic difference is that Stein’s movie was a lie. It was intentionally dishonest. [...]

In this film, the religious are merely saying what they believe. They have given their honest opinions.

It could also be argued that in Expelled, PZ and Dawkins said what they believed, too.

Not that I’ve seen either movie in its entirety, but from what I have seen, the problem is not what it says, but what it doesn’t say. Like The Root of All Evil?, it ignores the overwhelming majority of religious people who are no harm to anyone.

It doesn’t get a free pass on that. It’s much like Expelled completely ignoring the existence of the majority of Christians in the world who have no problem with evolution.

Or will we come out and admit the tactics used to make this movie were no different from those of the despicable Ben Stein and his crew, lowering us to their level?”

The basic difference is that Stein’s movie was a lie. It was intentionally dishonest. It showed things as they are not. The fabrications in it have been soundly and simply exposed by a web site set up by a US organisation for teaching science.

In this film, the religious are merely saying what they believe. They have given their honest opinions. They have been shown for what they are. I don’t think that’s a free pass at all; it’s the difference between Stein trying to fabricate, and portray the world as it ISN’T, and Maher trying to catch the kooks admitting what they’d rather keep quiet about.

I don’t think so. They don’t trust the media, or non-Christians in general. They think they’ll only be ridiculed. Remember, in their minds they are in a culture war–no aiding the enemy.

They might be ridiculed? Oh, my, that would be the end of the world!! As Greta Christina pointed out, gay people in this country have been killed by religious folk. Getting mocked is not that big of a deal. Let’s get some perspective.

I’ll still see the movie though, and probably thoroughly enjoy it.

If you’re someone who disagrees with that statement [about Candid Camera], but agrees with it when it’s applied to Religulous, then you’ve got some explaining to do.

I’ve always thought that Candid Camera was a bit cruel; more so than Jeremy Beadle or Punk’d.

Playing a prank on a person is one thing, if you know they can take a joke. Doing it to random strangers is something else. These people could be walking home from a funeral or something. You have no way of knowing.

But then, the current crop of British cringe humour mostly leaves me cold. I find that Alan Partridge, Borat, most of The Catherine Tate Show and about half of Little Britain usually make me wince rather than laugh.

(Admittedly, I’d probably appreciate The Catherine Tate Show more if I got the cultural references, and I love the character of Donna Noble and the stuff that Catherine did on Big Train. So I know it’s not her that I don’t like, it’s just the cringey humour.)

Expelled did a helluva lot more than not tell people who was the main person running the documentary until the ‘last second’. Expelled went as far and got as desperate as to liken evolution to/hold evolutionists responsible for, Nazism and the Final Solution. … Has Religulous done something that is as comparable? ….. I think not!

So tell me Mr. Friendly Atheist, who is really taking part in said smear campaign here? And since you don’t believe in letting atheists off the hook any more than religious people, ….. would you avoid letting yourself off the hook by such a dishonest comparison?

IMNSHO, Bill Maher stands head and shoulders above Ben Stein any day of the week.

Try again.

Garth P.

I think that possibly there is a difference here.

One is a comedy. One is proporting to be a documentary about political intimidation and an academic vendetta against non-philosophical-materialists within American higher education.

The authority of the documentary Expelled can be undermined effectively by pointing out that the interviews were obtained under false pretense, as well as pointing out various shenanigans like PZ being expelled from a screening.

It’s not that we’re going “ohhh, boo-hoo, Premise media is sooooo bad, they are bad, immoral people for doing this. Atheists would NEVER do this!” It’s merely that we’re able to undercut their credibility with these facts about their filmmaking process, so we make those facts available. Take or leave these facts, and do what you will with them.

Contrastingly, Bill Mahr and Larry Charles’ film will only be undercut if it’s not funny. I’m pretty sure people will know that there is an element of ambush to their interviews… at least that was pretty darn clear while watching Borat.

So let’s just put the facts on the table for both films.