One thing that always irked me about that Carlin bit regarding religion, and one thing that this movie is guilty off too, is arguing against/ridiculing "religion" and then proceeding to discuss Christianity.
Worse yet, people who do this often start talking about Catholicism or the Catholic church specifically, as if no other denominations or faiths exist.
It's a problem I have noticed as well. Most of the people who argue against Religion really seem to use Religion as a Synonym for Christianity. I was even in a discussion, on a Psychology site no less that was not meant for Religious debate, with someone who ran down "Religion' only to mock Christianity and the Bible. The real irony is, most of his condemnations came from the Old testament, or Tanahk, the Jewish Scriptures. When I pointed this and and asked him why he is not saying Judaism promotes Cannibalism, treating women as property, or bashing babi4s heads against stones, as all the verses he had used thusfar were Jewish Scripture, he deleted and said basically that Christians use them too and even Jesus acknowledged these Scriptures. of course I never said otherwise, and my point was that he was really just attacking Christianity.
The same pattern is seen over and over and over again. All Christians are held responsible for the (supposed, as History isn't quiet as simple as its made out to be) atrocities of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. In other words, if you are a Christian today you are responsible for what Mediaeval Catholics did 800 years Ago, even if you are not Catholic. If you are Amish and practice strict Pacifism, you are still guilty of the Crusades and inquisition and have blood on your hands, and your Religion, just because it is Christian, will, if given a chance, force people to convert and kill them in droves if they refuse.
Some will say the bias against Christianity doesn't exist, its just the major Religion, and others mock Islam as well, but that's only lip service. The bulk of the arguments are against Christianity.
The reason for this is simple. Atheism does not spread when people as individuals give up Religion because they begin to realise its false, or even when they gain material comfort and no longer need Religion. Atheism spreads on the back of atheistic Philosophies. Like any other single belief, it cannot exist on its own and needs other beliefs to back it up. Modern Atheism grew out of the Enlightenment and the 19th Century forethought movement. The bulk of the original arguments we see against Christianity came from the 19th century and many from the 18th, with few actually being new. The Enlightenment was honest about its cause, they wanted to impose a new Religion of Reason, but today the word Religion is seen as bad and what is being fought against.
In the end, the hope is to displace Christian ideas with "Enlightenment' ideas, not to simply convince people that Religion is wrong.
Christianity was attacked originally as a means to promote a new Philosophy. In he end Religion is just another term for Philosophy, and everyone is Religious. There is no single thing called religion, its just a term used to label belief systems.
The reason modern people are anti-Christian and focus on it is subclause the Movement they are recruited into formed around it and is now defined by a rejection of Christianity. it has nothing to do with thinking it through and everything to do with an emotional idea that Christianity is somehow wrong or Evil that has seeped into out culture, and the ready made arguments against it. its about maintain the struggle against Christianity since that gives definition to the Movement, and thus an identity to its adherers.
Zeitgeist is just an extension of this. At least in part 1.
There is a large pattern of this in Western society and while the reason is kind of obvious - Christianity is a known entity, so in order to start chopping down a foreign religion time would be required to first familiarize the audience with that religion's tenets and history (in this film the Inquisition and Crusades are mentioned by name and no qualifiers or explanation is required) which producers will often choose to forgo for time or budgetary constraints, or simply because they believe the point has been made vis a vie "forest for the trees" - I think it often muddys the issue by confusing the movies true agenda or
shareits also pouitnless isnce the information abou Christianity is false.
heck, even the Inquisition and Crusades line isnt viable sicne real Historians reject the simplistic notisn of them as just unquestiobaly Evil acts.
Yeah, well the OP isn't necessarily talking about the accuracy of this movie's information. It's making a point that often when films (fiction or none fiction) declares its making a point about religion in general they tend to give a lot of their focus to Christianity exclusively.
m.v.
True, but I was respondin to you. I already responded to the original post.
shareThat may be true. I don't care about the voracity of the information. I was simply stating that, at least in the States, films that suggest they're generally attacking religion often spend a lot of their energy on Christianity specifically.
m.v.