The official synopsis for Religulous says that Bill Maher "applies his characteristic honesty" to the subject of faith. Apparently, he has a somewhat selective definition of honesty. I've noted the sleights of hand used with Francis Collins and John Adams.
Consider, too, what they did to the Creation Museum near Cincinnati.
Now, in a documentary on religion, I think it's fair game to probe creationism and the role of "young earth" theology in public policy making. So I can understand why Maher was dying to get his crew inside the Museum and interview the leaders of the Museum. But he faced a problem. As a well known critic of religion, there's no way the Museum would give him free run of the museum. They'd turned down request to appear on Maher's TV show, figuring that they would simply become an object of ridicule.
So, Maher and company tricked them.
First, they secured cooperation by completely concealing Bill Maher's role in the movie. According to representatives of the Museum, on January 30, 2007, they got an email from someone named Bethany Davis. She gushed that "photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis."The "documentary" would "explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts." They noted that the "producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few." (Full email below the fold)
There was no mention of Bill Maher.
According to Ken Ham, the president of the Museum, here's what happened next. On the day of the interview, the crew (but not Maher) showed up at the main entrance, as planned, to interview Ham. He spoke to them about the Museum and gave a tour. Again, no mention of Maher.
After a while, the crew requested to interview Ham in his office. Maher snuck in a side door of the museum (picture, from a security camera, above) and went to Ham's office. Ham says he doesn't get HBO and didn't remember who Maher was. He assumed he was another reporter from the crew. He gave an interview which became the grist for a brutal segment in Religulous.
Ham saw the movie recently and claims, not surprisingly, that Maher left out parts where he was best defending his position. "Their agenda was to mock people," Ham said. "They don't believe in ethics."
Asked to comment on the idea that they tricked the Creation Museum into cooperating, the director, Larry Charles, sent me this statement via email:
"Ken Ham is a media whore. He has cultivated all sorts of media outlets to promote his agenda. Why should he be allowed to get off the hook? Why shouldn't he be asked some tough questions? He has built this quasi-museum to quasi-science, isn't there a journalistic obligation to scrutinize this?He has gotten a free ride from the media. He is a dangerous man. We don't even know where the money comes from to build that $30 million museum. If Mike Wallace had grilled him for '60 Minutes', we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because someone doesn't want to talk to us, doesn't mean they shouldn't be talked to."
The ends, in other words, justify the means. Now, as I said at the outset, I think Creation Science is certainly a fair topic for a movie like this. But for a movie that draws blood by accusing religious figures of dishonesty and hypocrisy, it's more than a little ironic that deception was such a central part of their modus operandi.
It would be one thing if Bill Maher marketed this only as a prank-filled comedy. But Religulous claims to be a "documentary" that raises profound questions of life and death. How can we take it seriously as a documentary if it relied so heavily on deceit?
The full email:
Dear Mr. Ken Ham,My name is Bethany Davis and I am currently working on a documentary for First Word Productions, an independent production company.
Our documentary seeks to explore the cultural landscape of the United States through highlighting religious centers, historical sites and key religious experts. The producers involved have worked on various projects for CBS news, ABC news, Discovery Channel, FX and MSNBC to name a few.
After seeing one of your speaking engagements, and then further researching Answers In Genesis and The Creationist Museum we think you could be an invaluable inclusion in our exploration. Reading through some of your online material, we believe that you and your museum can illustrate Creationism in an insightful and engaging way that will appeal to our audience. We would be especially thrilled to be able to include a guided tour of the Creationist Museum with you. The photos of the museum on your website are awe inspiring and we feel that showcasing this amazing museum to a broad audience would add to spreading the word of Answers In Genesis
I'd love to discuss the details of this project with you further over the phone. I can be reached at
323-860-3553
323-202-7343or via email. When might be a good time to call and where can I best reach you?
I look forward to hearing from you.All the Best,
Bethany Davis
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Person who suffers,
I was unable to read the whole article unless I signed up for highbeam. I don't like to sign up and put my credit card out there any more than necessary. If there is something specific in the article you'll need to post it for me
"can you explain to me what you believe within the noah's ark story. including the 2 of every animal, flooding the enitre world etc"
I can give reasons, I believe it to be an actual event but I think it will take several posts and chances for you to either disagree or agree. We have to start with current day thought on geology and recongnize its foundation.
Charles Lyell is the founder of modern geology. The key to the past is the present day processes, or "Uniformitarianism". This belief has clouded many discoveries and likely the one you posted would have been rejected years ago because of the fact that we dont observe huge volumes of water pouring out and making the Black Sea or other seas. The fact that there is acceptance is a reflection of movement tword what is called "Actualism", which allows for events like the "Black Sea flood of biblical..." on occasion as shaping geology.
Any person in the right mind has to admit that at one point all mountain ranges were under water. The highest mountain ranges have sedimentary rock, and fossils which is formed under water so to say these mountains were never under water is ridiculous.
So then where is the argument? Its more of a question of how do mountains form? Can they form quickly?
Uniformitarinism would say mountains have slowly pushed up over years and years. This is a belief on that model of uniformitarianism. Current studies suggest that erosion rates currently out pace any uplift that is occuring. So at some point in the past mountains would have had to move faster.
Water run off post ice age would still fit in a Biblical time frame having the ice age occur very rapidly in 300-500 years and can still account for a Black sea water runn off theory just fine. 7,500 years ago is picked because its believed to be that last ice age. (I think it was more recent)
A global flood with rapid moving geologic plates can explain mountain building, it can give a much more accurate scenario for the reason of the ice age with the oceans having been mixed and warmed along with increased vocanic activity. There is no really good explanation for the ice age to begin with, which is why there are many competing ideas as to why the ice age occured.
With your post we see how geologic features can and do happen rapidly, I can accept a global flood I feel it makes the most sense of all the evidence that is out there.
Past thinking for geologic processes have not allowed for what you have posted in the past. There is some mainstream movement that the Grand Canyon also was formed more quickly from a large release of water as well instead of slowly over millions and millions of years.
I'll stop there and then wait next post I'll talk about the Ark and animals.
:)
I guess you grew weary of the conversation take care. I will be thinking of you. Get your answers at Answers in Genesis for more answers.
Paul
I am not quite sure I understand this article. You are not able to stand the scrutiny of non-believers in the museum? You did not want a documentary team in your museum who did not share your views. Is it the Chritian way to keep non-believers out of the museum? I take every chance I can to defend my views.
I think a God the can think no farther than to create a man as a man lacks creativity {pun intended}. A God that has a big enough plan as to start with a cell and have it turn into a man, now that's a real God. Sop selling God short He's much smarter than you think!
I'm actually surprised. My last post was actually sufficient to shut up the vast majority of the religious liars. Only Bunyan continued, and as I'd already destroyed everything he's said, there's nothing left to do. And here I figured there'd be a couple hundred new posts to skim through.
Even with the average lifespan growing ever closer to 100 years, the debate over belief in creationism and evolution is ultimately pointless. One hundred years can be perceived as a very short time or very long, examined linearly it is a constant on this planet. Therefore, whatever you beliefs are they don't need to be defended. Mocking the process of another's mind is arrogant and foolish considering all information that brings one to that conclusion is not available. As human beings, we get caught up in pride and desire to be right. But being right changes little after 100 years, being wrong changes little in 100 years, but being compassionate now, being generous of heart, considerate of others, and respectful of everyone's journey of self discovery and enlightenment, that does matter now. Many things that were thought in the past seem foolish to us now, because more information is available to us now. As many things we think now will surely be thought foolish in 100 years. I respect both views of creationism and evolution. But they could both be right, and they could both be wrong. We just don't have all the information available to us. But hopefully in our lifetimes we do.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.