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
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.
I have twice seen the film "Religulous" at the Nova cinema in Melbourne, Australia. I would like to know what "ridiculous" points Bill Maher made during his visit to the Creation Museum. It seemed like Bill's reasoning was very sound, leaving Ken Ham with nothing else to say except pull out that age-old cliché "Are you god?" in response to Bill's line of questioning. To his credit, Bill met Ken's question with silence, because asking an atheist like Bill if he believes in god is like asking an adult for belief in the Easter Bunny. It's a rhetorical throwaway question which is totally illogical, destructive and does nothing to advance the Creationist point of view, nor does it discredit atheism.
The burden of proof to prove the existence of god is upon the believer, not the sceptic. Hey, I could claim a winged pink elephant named Mumbo Dumbo who lives inside the sun talks to me during my sleep. I could tell you Mumbo Dumbo is real and if you were to deny the existence of my deity, I could simply reply "Just because YOU haven't seen Mumbo Dumbo, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Those who blindly defend the existence of god through deception, pseudoscience and illogic shift the burden of proof to the atheist, which is ludicrous to say the least. I might claim there really is a winged pink elephant that lives in the sun, but I would then need to prove that to you. Just like if I claimed to have painted the Mona Lisa or invented space travel, it might help to have some evidence to support my claims.
Ken Ham knows Bill Maher isn't god, Bill Maher doesn't BELIEVE in god, so asking this question was positively stupid. Also, the Creation Museum claim Ken's best arguments were omitted from the film. I'm quite certain if these arguments held any water, Ken wouldn't have needed to resort to the "Are you god?" and "The lord works in mysterious ways" excuses, which Bill rightly called a cop-out.
Besides, Bill didn't need to try very much to mock the Creation Museum. When the triceratops was shown wearing a saddle (!), the cringe-factor and laughter inside the cinema spoke for the sheer absurdity of the scene. The notion dinosaurs and humans shared the earth falls flat when you consider if humans, deprived of high-technology weapons, had shared the world with carnivorous monsters the size of skyscrapers, we wouldn't be here today. I know for damn certain these animals wouldn't have been domesticated to the point where they wore saddles. I haven't ever seen a rhinoceros (the modern day version of the triceratops) wearing a saddle. Have you?
Also, please allow me to respond to the person who claims the debate between creationism and evolution is "pointless."
Creationism is part of the pseudoscience into which religious fanatics pour their faith and the lie religions use to gain adherents. It's a romantic notion to believe some great being in the clouds made Adam in his image, and this notion leads to the denial of science, as we know it. Those who research the evolution of humanity and other beings in nature do so to advance our understanding of the world, a very precious and noble pursuit. Creationism often stands in the way of real science and understanding our world, therefore, I believe sceptics have every right to question creationism. Firstly, because this debate can expose the lies of religion to people. When you examine the fraud that is the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, little if anything else in the Bible can be taken seriously, given the sheer illogic of Adam and Eve and the talking snake, etc. Secondly, as I have said, understanding the fraud of creationism then allows the pathway of curiosity to explore the genuine origins of the human race.
Yes, many of us are here on the planet for 100 years at most. However, maybe the brevity of our existence means these fundamental questions don't matter less, but rather they matter more. Maybe the debate between creationism and evolution matters more because we are here for a relative blink in the history of the world. I'm damn certain I will not squander my precious existence talking to spirits who aren't there and practicing the sanitised witchcraft that is modern organised religion. And if you think that's harsh, examine the parallels between god-worship and pagan rituals. Not really all that different, not what Ken Ham wants you to believe, but connect the dots and the voodoo hoodoos of religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology or Mormonism become apparent.
Finally, I don't know why the Creation Museum makes such a big fuss about Bill Maher entering the building to confront Ken Ham. One's convictions in god must be pretty weak if they fear a confrontation with a jocular television personality. Furthermore, if Bill really "snuck in the side door," where was the security to turf him out? I don't buy that Bill strolled into Ken's office with nobody, not even Ken, recognising him. Of course, Larry Charles is right: Ken Ham really is a media-seeking glutton for attention, and I dare say, Ken's real problem was not that he was "surprised" by the appearance of Bill Maher, more like Ken is sore at being outsmarted a direct confrontation with a stand-up comedian. Again, Ken and company can claim the "best bits" were left out of the documentary, but I saw the film and the religious fanatics gave the same trite answers to Bill's questions I get when confronted by those preaching the gospel. I think it also reeks of arrogance to claim Ken was the "only theologian" with any credibility in the film. I wonder, what makes Ken Ham and the staff of the Creation Museum any closer to "god" than any of the other religious adherents interviewed in the movie?
I challenge Ken Ham and anyone else from the Creation Museum or anyone who shares their views (Steve Waldman, I'm looking at YOU), to confront me, in person or via e-mail, with their "best arguments" that were ostensibly omitted from the final cut of "Religulous." Chances are, I shall ultimately be met with the same "the lord works in mysterious ways, who are we to question him?" excuse which is the standard line of religious apologists the world over, regardless of denomination.
P.S. I find it amusing that those from the Creation Museum accuse Bill Maher of name-calling, only to label Bill and those behind the documentary as god-haters. I don't think you can hate god if you believe he doesn't really exist. Additionally, I would say the Creation Museum got off lightly with Bill Maher, who for the most part seemed quite reasonable and subdued in his approach. You must admit, his references to The Flintstones and Raquel Welch in "One Million Years B.C." were hilarious...and underscored the silliness of human-dinosaur co-existence beliefs.
Mark Vanselow
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.