Bill Maher and Religulous

[Kitch]

Has anyone seen this movie yet?

I just watched it on Saturday and... well... I'm disappointed. I'm a self described level headed atheist, which is what I thought Bill Maher was as well. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling, let's say, uneasy.

He did a decent job of making all religion look ridiculous, but he did a better job of demonizing Islam. He made christians and jews look silly and muslims like irrational killers. Is this what Americans really, REALLY think?

[DrGreenthumb]

Has anyone seen this movie yet?

I just watched it on Saturday and... well... I'm disappointed. I'm a self described level headed atheist, which is what I thought Bill Maher was as well. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling, let's say, uneasy.

He did a decent job of making all religion look ridiculous, but he did a better job of demonizing Islam. He made christians and jews look silly and muslims like irrational killers. Is this what Americans really, REALLY think?

I havn't seen it yet but I'd like to. If Bill Maher was involved in production/script it should be great. I used to love that politically incorrect show he had.

[WIP]

Has anyone seen this movie yet?

I will being seeing the movie this weekend! I don't know anything about it, but even if it's crap, I consider it to be a freethought antidote to religious bullshit that continually attacks everyone who opts out of organized religion.

The religious have loads of cash from the collection plate to support their propaganda: from Passion of the Christ, to the Left Behind movies -- but what's worse is garbage like Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," which retreads that old fundie canard that the Nazis tried to kill all of the Jews because they were atheists -- and they became atheists because they accepted the theory of evolution! Good thing Stein's movie was as boring as his monotone voice, and couldn't even motivate the Sarah Palin-types who were the target audience!

I just watched it on Saturday and... well... I'm disappointed. I'm a self described level headed atheist, which is what I thought Bill Maher was as well. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling, let's say, uneasy.

You have to remember that people have all sorts of reasons and motivations for deciding what they believe and what they don't believe in! From his interviews, I get the impression that Bill Maher's agnosticism is drawn from his resentment of organized religion, especially his Catholic upbringing; and that does not mean that he has become a philosopher and tried to think through an alternative, humanistic worldview. Maher seems to be nothing more or less than a hedonist who wants to enjoy smoking pot and having casual sex, and if there was a church out there that made his hedonistic pleasures a sacrament, he would likely be the first one to sign up!

I heard Maher in a Larry King interview recently, and I was surprised also about how clueless he was about the basic definitions of terms like atheism and agnosticism -- Maher stated that he was an agnostic because an atheist is claiming that there are no gods or supernatural beings -- which is total bullshit! Without realizing it, Maher has defined himself as an atheist because HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, case closed! You don't have to be claiming you have proof that there is no God to be an atheist, no more than a believer has to claim to have proof that there is a God. Atheism/theism is just a position based on what you believe to be true, and it's a shame that Maher isn't informed enough to know the difference himself, since he has taken the stage as this hour's spokesman for the freethought movement.

Many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, claim to be both atheists and agnostics -- which I find a little hard to stomach, since Dawkins is writing books trying to prove the nonexistence of gods to others -- I wish he would have just said he was an atheist, and left it at that. For someone to use the definition of "agnostic" they should be using it as a belief statement, not a knowledge claim, and act like they are really unsure of whether gods and supernatural forces exist or not. Larry King fits the description of an agnostic, but Bill Maher doesn't -- otherwise he wouldn't be ripping everyone who does believe in some sort of God or supernatural creator!

He did a decent job of making all religion look ridiculous, but he did a better job of demonizing Islam. He made christians and jews look silly and muslims like irrational killers. Is this what Americans really, REALLY think?

Maher may be uninformed and have a lot of stupid beliefs himself, but one thing he does well is social commentary; he has figured out why religion is such a powerful force: ""Religion is the easiest thing to sell because it's an invisible product." I have a book written by sociologists Rodney Starke and Roger Finke, who propose a theory that organized religions work by simple economic principles, and they get their adherents (and their money) by selling the promise of eternal life to the sheep in their flock. Not many people will read a dry dissertation of the concept from these guys, but a lot more people may pick up the same point when it's made by Maher, in a much more entertaining manner.

[Kitch]

Many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, claim to be both atheists and agnostics -- which I find a little hard to stomach, since Dawkins is writing books trying to prove the nonexistence of gods to others -- I wish he would have just said he was an atheist, and left it at that.

I enjoyed your post. You make a good point. Even if Maher is a less than perfect analyst, he still is bringing a point of view to the masses that few people can/will attempt AND be listened to... for a while at least.

I couldn't quite pick out your definitions of the terms atheist and agnostic though. I understand (I think) what Dawkins means when he says he's both. An atheist 'believes' that there is no higher power just as theists believe that there is one. It has nothing to do with proof or evidence... just a belief. The word agnostic doesn't actually apply to this topic alone. When somebody is agnostic about something, they know that they can NEVER 'know' the truth. So Dawkins can believe but also know that it's nothing more than a belief.

I did read The God Delusion though. He didn't reeeeallly claim that it was proof that there is no god. He said that there is 'almost certainly no god'. Which is different. He used examples to show that the likelihood of the existence of a god is not equal to the likelihood that one doesn't exist... and that's it. He says that it's far more likely that one doesn't exist.

I guess you can't comment until after you see Religulous, but I'll ask now anyway... do you think that Americans will leave the theatre with the impression that 'America' is right for it's "war on terror" which is actually against islam because it is portrayed as dangerous while the other big book religions are portrayed as nothing more than silly? I mean, I know that there are some people who will believe that regardless and do want to kill all muslims, but... it just worries me to think that they could feel legitimized.

[moderateamericain]

I enjoyed your post. You make a good point. Even if Maher is a less than perfect analyst, he still is bringing a point of view to the masses that few people can/will attempt AND be listened to... for a while at least.

I couldn't quite pick out your definitions of the terms atheist and agnostic though. I understand (I think) what Dawkins means when he says he's both. An atheist 'believes' that there is no higher power just as theists believe that there is one. It has nothing to do with proof or evidence... just a belief. The word agnostic doesn't actually apply to this topic alone. When somebody is agnostic about something, they know that they can NEVER 'know' the truth. So Dawkins can believe but also know that it's nothing more than a belief.

I did read The God Delusion though. He didn't reeeeallly claim that it was proof that there is no god. He said that there is 'almost certainly no god'. Which is different. He used examples to show that the likelihood of the existence of a god is not equal to the likelihood that one doesn't exist... and that's it. He says that it's far more likely that one doesn't exist.

I guess you can't comment until after you see Religulous, but I'll ask now anyway... do you think that Americans will leave the theatre with the impression that 'America' is right for it's "war on terror" which is actually against islam because it is portrayed as dangerous while the other big book religions are portrayed as nothing more than silly? I mean, I know that there are some people who will believe that regardless and do want to kill all muslims, but... it just worries me to think that they could feel legitimized.

Id kill all radical Muslims who do terrorism or support it, if i had my way. Got no problem with moderates.

Edited October 8, 2008 by moderateamericain

[Kitch]

Id kill all radical Muslims who do terrorism or support it, if i had my way. Got no problem with moderates.

But how does the typical person differentiate between a radical and a moderate? Maher does a poor job of even trying to distinguish between them. (It does scare me to think about the radicals too... but I have to wonder, are all of their motives entirely based on religion?)

[moderateamericain]

But how does the typical person differentiate between a radical and a moderate? Maher does a poor job of even trying to distinguish between them. (It does scare me to think about the radicals too... but I have to wonder, are all of their motives entirely based on religion?)

to me it breaks down as the following

1. Participate in against acts of violence based on Jihad

2. Preach or sermon violence based on Jihad which convinces a follower to commit a crime

3. Support Jihad through financial or protect terrorist cells

Edited October 8, 2008 by moderateamericain

[JB Globe]

Id kill all radical Muslims who do terrorism or support it, if i had my way.

I don't think it's possible for any nation to kill all those who oppose it, I think containment is a better option.

Also - are you just as willing to kill Americans who want to wage a "jihad" of sorts against the entire Muslim world?

[JB Globe]

On the movie . . .

I don't know if I'll be checking this movie out, I was hoping that Maher & the director would make a proper documentary about the subject (note: proper docs can also be hilarious, they just have to approach the subject honestly) however it appears that they just went out and tried to make a film that makes organized religion look ridiculous, and used heavy-handed manipulative techniques to get the product they wanted.

ie - Interviewing folks that are extreme in their views, not representative, and don't have enough media-savy to realize how ridiculous they're going to look on film (taking advantage of their nativity). It isn't as if Maher is talking to religious scholars or prominent leaders after all.

Also, as this reviewer points out: "Maher takes advantage of manipulative techniques such as using subtitles or superimposed text on screen to contradict or ridicule what the participants are saying to the camera."

I just find it completely disingenuous as someone who works on docs myself to be sitting there interviewing someone fully knowing that you're going to do everything you can to make them look like an idiot. If a person is foolish, you let them hang themselves, you don't need subtitles.

I liken it to myself wanting to produce an American-bashing documentary and then going out and interviewing the most ridiculous and ignorant people I could find, regardless of if they were at all representative of America as a whole.

[Kitch]

On the movie . . .

ie - Interviewing folks that are extreme in their views, not representative, and don't have enough media-savy to realize how ridiculous they're going to look on film (taking advantage of their nativity). It isn't as if Maher is talking to religious scholars or prominent leaders after all.

I don't think that this is TOTALLY fair... he does interview some people set in some messed up ways (in my opinion) but he does talk to some people who are critical of religion in a reasonable way. He speaks with a few priests, including one from the Vatican (I could be mistaken about whether he still works there or not).

It's not quite a Michael Moore (of old) documentary in which he puts a slant on things that is opposite but equally one-sided to the mainstream media (which is useful, I think... and I think that's the goal of guys like Moore. To propagandize just like the media but from a different perspective).

[WIP]

I enjoyed your post. You make a good point. Even if Maher is a less than perfect analyst, he still is bringing a point of view to the masses that few people can/will attempt AND be listened to... for a while at least.

I couldn't quite pick out your definitions of the terms atheist and agnostic though. I understand (I think) what Dawkins means when he says he's both. An atheist 'believes' that there is no higher power just as theists believe that there is one. It has nothing to do with proof or evidence... just a belief. The word agnostic doesn't actually apply to this topic alone. When somebody is agnostic about something, they know that they can NEVER 'know' the truth. So Dawkins can believe but also know that it's nothing more than a belief.

But that's where the definitions become confusing to the average person, especially when you use two definitions - atheist/agnostic - together. There are some people who are really unsure about whether they should believe or not that the Universe is designed and has a purpose that involves humans, or whether or not we have souls (interesting that Maher is sure that there is no God, but agnostic about whether he has a soul). People on the fence are what most people think of when they hear the term 'agnostic.'

In some ways, saying "I'm an agnostic too" could be seen as a copout -- especially if it's used by someone who is atheistic enough to challenge other people's reasons for believing in gods or supernatural entities.

I did read The God Delusion though. He didn't reeeeallly claim that it was proof that there is no god. He said that there is 'almost certainly no god'. Which is different. He used examples to show that the likelihood of the existence of a god is not equal to the likelihood that one doesn't exist... and that's it. He says that it's far more likely that one doesn't exist.

Dawkins is a biologist by training, and new at the world of philosophical debate, so I got the impression that the slim possibility he left open for the existence of God is there because he doesn't want to have to try to prove a negative; but there are others who are willing to take up the challenge, such as physicist Vic Stenger, who contends that he can prove the nonexistence of gods and supernatural forces in our world. I don't think Stenger wears the agnostic tag to describe his own viewpoint.

I guess you can't comment until after you see Religulous, but I'll ask now anyway... do you think that Americans will leave the theatre with the impression that 'America' is right for it's "war on terror" which is actually against islam because it is portrayed as dangerous while the other big book religions are portrayed as nothing more than silly? I mean, I know that there are some people who will believe that regardless and do want to kill all muslims, but... it just worries me to think that they could feel legitimized.

I used to watch Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show all the time before in got cancelled just after 9/11; and I recall that Maher was willing to go along with the War On Terror, when it focused on Afghanistan, but bailed out when the Iraq Invasion strategy was being set up, so his line of thinking would favour a more isolationist attitude of staying out of Muslim countries if there is no direct reason to get involved. Maher doesn't support the Neocon strategy of building democracies in the Muslim World, but he also doesn't support the Clash of Civilizations concept that many Christian nationalists have put together to encourage a crusade against Islam.

[kengs333]

Has anyone seen this movie yet?

I just watched it on Saturday and... well... I'm disappointed. I'm a self described level headed atheist, which is what I thought Bill Maher was as well. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling, let's say, uneasy.

He did a decent job of making all religion look ridiculous, but he did a better job of demonizing Islam. He made christians and jews look silly and muslims like irrational killers. Is this what Americans really, REALLY think?

I kind of admired Maher for being outspoken on some issues, but I think that something like this is tasteless and hypocritical. One can easily make something look "ridiculous" by selecting certain kinds of characters and editting the film to make the person look even less flattering. You know, like the way Nazi propagandists would always portray Jews as spindly, hook-nosed, and miserly looking... Someone could easily make an equally bigotted film called Seculigulous and snip together a bunch of film about crack adicts, gang bangers, transvestites, serial killers, telemarketers, and members of the USMC...

[Peter F]

Id kill all radical Muslims who do terrorism or support it, if i had my way. Got no problem with moderates.

Just radical Muslim terrorists or any ol' terrorist?

[Kitch]

But that's where the definitions become confusing to the average person, especially when you use two definitions - atheist/agnostic - together. There are some people who are really unsure about whether they should believe or not that the Universe is designed and has a purpose that involves humans, or whether or not we have souls (interesting that Maher is sure that there is no God, but agnostic about whether he has a soul). People on the fence are what most people think of when they hear the term 'agnostic.'

In some ways, saying "I'm an agnostic too" could be seen as a copout -- especially if it's used by someone who is atheistic enough to challenge other people's reasons for believing in gods or supernatural entities.

Dawkins is a biologist by training, and new at the world of philosophical debate, so I got the impression that the slim possibility he left open for the existence of God is there because he doesn't want to have to try to prove a negative; but there are others who are willing to take up the challenge, such as physicist Vic Stenger, who contends that he can prove the nonexistence of gods and supernatural forces in our world. I don't think Stenger wears the agnostic tag to describe his own viewpoint.

I used to watch Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show all the time before in got cancelled just after 9/11; and I recall that Maher was willing to go along with the War On Terror, when it focused on Afghanistan, but bailed out when the Iraq Invasion strategy was being set up, so his line of thinking would favour a more isolationist attitude of staying out of Muslim countries if there is no direct reason to get involved. Maher doesn't support the Neocon strategy of building democracies in the Muslim World, but he also doesn't support the Clash of Civilizations concept that many Christian nationalists have put together to encourage a crusade against Islam.

Fair enough. I too have heard the word agnostic used to mean someone who doesn't think there's a god... but just in case...

Well, I want to defend Dawkins on this. He's a Popperian scientist in that he believes in the scientific method. Karl Popper said that hypotheses are scientific if, and only if, they are, at least in principle, refutable. The hypothesis that a god exists is not refutable, so Dawkins is careful to claim any 'proof'. In reality, according to Popper (and I agree), you can't prove anything to be true. Science is about conjectures and refutations (hence the name of his book). So I'm also suspicious of this Stenger guy if he claims that he can 'prove' that god doesn't exist... although, maybe I'm just not at a level at which I can comprehend a piece of evidence that would refute the existence of a god.

You've articulated my impressions about Maher before I could understand them myself! Thanks! Do you think that this view (his) is one that is helpful to the progress of... society? I think it's a step in the right direction, but I feel like war should be more or less viewed under one lens, if that makes sense.

[WIP]

Fair enough. I too have heard the word agnostic used to mean someone who doesn't think there's a god... but just in case...

Well, I want to defend Dawkins on this. He's a Popperian scientist in that he believes in the scientific method. Karl Popper said that hypotheses are scientific if, and only if, they are, at least in principle, refutable. The hypothesis that a god exists is not refutable, so Dawkins is careful to claim any 'proof'.

It seems to be a matter of whether or not it is necessary to falsify an extraordinary claim. Stenger doesn't examine pantheism or deist gods, but tries to focus on the kind of creator that comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition -- omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and existing outside of and separate from the creation. Stenger's point is that this interpretation, which most Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in makes a lot of testable scientific claims about the origins of the Universe, the nature and development of the Universe, and claims about the development of life on Earth (especially human life) that can be examined and compared with scientific observations.

Stenger's point (which I believe Dawkins agrees with) is that the God Hypothesis is falsified by empirical data and observation beyond a reasonable doubt; so he doesn't feel the claim is worth serious consideration. Dawkins says that the evidence against the God Hypothesis does not reach the level of absolute certainty (when does it ever?), so he hangs on to the agnostic tag. But Richard Dawkins is so sure that God does not exist, and that religious beliefs are harmful, that I wonder why he feels the need to hang on to the agnostic label. It comes across as an attempt to appear non-judgmental.

In reality, according to Popper (and I agree), you can't prove anything to be true. Science is about conjectures and refutations (hence the name of his book). So I'm also suspicious of this Stenger guy if he claims that he can 'prove' that god doesn't exist... although, maybe I'm just not at a level at which I can comprehend a piece of evidence that would refute the existence of a god.

Actually, the subtitle of Stenger's book is "How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" not "How Science Proves God Does Not Exist,"

and I think it indicates that Stenger is aware that there are human limitations in the way of determining absolute truth. He isn't going to claim that he is going to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who is a determined believer.

You've articulated my impressions about Maher before I could understand them myself! Thanks! Do you think that this view (his) is one that is helpful to the progress of... society? I think it's a step in the right direction, but I feel like war should be more or less viewed under one lens, if that makes sense.

Maher has been a longtime critic of religion, but he is even more sketchy about what to replace religion with than the so-called "new atheists:" Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Are the majority of churchgoers going to become happy, enlightened atheists? I find that a bit of a stretch. It's not just a matter of belief, there is also a question of where these people will go to find the services and the support network that they have at church.

Maher himself is a hedonistic bachelor who says he never wants to get married or have children, so he's sort of like a 50 year old teenager. In interviews, he doesn't seem to consider how atypical his personal life is compared to most people, and how that might make it difficult for him to relate to how the average person deals with life. He is good at presenting critiques of what's wrong in the world in an entertaining way, but I can't see him being able to offer many constructive solutions.

[GostHacked]

Agnostic - someone who is not sure there is a god or not.

Athiest - someone who does not believe any god exists.

That is the difference. I lean towards athiesm myself, but since no one is 100% sure, we could all be agnostics. Because you will only know for sure that god exists/does not exist, is when you die.

[Topaz]

Let's us all remember its not only the Muslim that kill for their God. GW said God told him to invade Iraq!

[AngusThermopyle]

GW said God told him to invade Iraq!

You know, I've heard this many times but I've never actually seen it or read it as quoted directly from him. Do you have a link or something that shows this to be true beyond doubt?

[Kitch]

You know, I've heard this many times but I've never actually seen it or read it as quoted directly from him. Do you have a link or something that shows this to be true beyond doubt?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...r/06/bush.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

Who knows if he actually said that. But I've heard him say some messed up things about god in reference to his wars.

[Kitch]

Stenger's point (which I believe Dawkins agrees with) is that the God Hypothesis is falsified by empirical data and observation beyond a reasonable doubt; so he doesn't feel the claim is worth serious consideration.

I'd like to read this guy's book. I, personally, can't think of any evidence that could falsify the god hypothesis. Thus, I can't (at the moment) consider the god hypothesis a scientific one. That doesn't mean that there can't be discussion about its validity... just that I don't think it can be evaluated using the scientific method. But, again, just because I can't think of evidence that would falsify it doesn't mean that none exists!

Speaking of the guys you mentioned... what do you think of Hitches (spelling?)? I'm reading "God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything" right now and it seems OK so far.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who knows if he actually said that. But I've heard him say some messed up things about god in reference to his wars.

Has nothing to do with 'God"...a US president can attack or invade Iraq without his blessing. Just ask Clinton or #41.

[WIP]

Has nothing to do with 'God"...a US president can attack or invade Iraq without his blessing. Just ask Clinton or #41.

Well so much for being able to attack and invade anywhere you want! Wars cost money, and when you charge a war on your line of credit, eventually the bill has to be paid. The war will end either with a pragmatic decision from a future American president, or when the financial ruin largely brought on by this unpaid-for war, forces a withdrawal!

Since George is so religious, maybe he can ask if God will send money from heaven to finance a continued occupation.

[WIP]

I'd like to read this guy's book. I, personally, can't think of any evidence that could falsify the god hypothesis. Thus, I can't (at the moment) consider the god hypothesis a scientific one.

I know that Richard Dawkins himself believes that the claims made to prove existence of God make it a scientific claim that can be tested to determine its validity (on another forum, a creationist liked Dawkins' quote so much he used it for his signature line). Speaking from a physicist's viewpoint, Stenger examines whether the Universe as understood through physics and cosmology fits the claims of being "designed." His main reason for getting involved in the debate over God was to debunk fine tuning claims made primarily by theologians such as William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and Christian fundamentalist physicist Frank Tipler. Checking over at the Secular Web, I notice that Vic Stenger has authored at least half of the articles debunking fine tuning and the anthropic principle arguments.

That doesn't mean that there can't be discussion about its validity... just that I don't think it can be evaluated using the scientific method. But, again, just because I can't think of evidence that would falsify it doesn't mean that none exists!

Speaking of the guys you mentioned... what do you think of Hitches (spelling?)? I'm reading "God Is Not Great: How religion poisons everything" right now and it seems OK so far.

There's a lot of things I like about Hitchens -- he may be the most well-read of the new atheist authors (even people who hate him could learn a lot about English literature from this book), and he believes in criticizing things that need criticism -- unlike Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hitchens does not give Eastern religions like Buddhism a free pass, and points out how the negative aspects of Buddhist philosophy have encouraged fatalism and social apathy -- he is also probably the only writer who has spoken out about harmful aspects of this age's two greatest sacred cows -- the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa.

The biggest weakness I find in his argument that "religion poisons everything" is the absolutist, uncompromising tone that doesn't acknowledge a materialistic atheist may also hold irrational beliefs, especially if he starts feeling a sense of superiority. And he doesn't consider that irrational does not necessarily mean harmful. A person may want to believe in a religious dogma to protect a belief in immortality, and if he finds facing death too difficult to make without the promise of an afterlife, then the cold hard facts will cause more harm than the false belief in immortality.

Hitchens doesn't acknowledge that a movement based on materialism, such as Marxism, can also cause great harm. His response to Christians who point out the evils of Marxism is the same version of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" that Christians and Muslims use when one of their own commits a crime -- Hitchens says that the Marxist leaders who created genocides, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, were not true atheists since they adopted many aspects of traditional religious practice, such as hero worship and turning the leader into a demigod. Hitchens and other "new atheists" have to come to terms with the fact that if a movement coalesces around an atheist belief system that views their version of materialism as giving them the right to govern and to try to put an end to superstitious belief systems, it could be every bit as bad as an authoritarian religious system of government.

[WIP]

Agnostic - someone who is not sure there is a god or not.

Athiest - someone who does not believe any god exists.

That is the difference. I lean towards athiesm myself, but since no one is 100% sure, we could all be agnostics. Because you will only know for sure that god exists/does not exist, is when you die.

Agnostic literally means "not knowing" since it is derived from the Greek word for knowledge - gnosis, so someone can claim not to believe in God (atheist) and not know for certain if God exists (agnostic).

But most people think of an agnostic as being a fence-sitter, unsure of whether or not God exists, and since the English language is a dynamic language that constantly adds new words and changes definitions of old words, eventually agnostic will mean unsure, so Richard Dawkins may as well stop using the word now.

[Leafless]

Agnostic - someone who is not sure there is a god or not.

Athiest - someone who does not believe any god exists.

That is the difference. I lean towards athiesm myself, but since no one is 100% sure, we could all be agnostics. Because you will only know for sure that god exists/does not exist, is when you die.

Being 'atheist' or 'agnostic' are beliefs and therefore can be catergorized as being the same as being a follower of any current religion on this planet.