So I finally got a reply from my email of several months back concerning the History Channel program, "Banned from the Bible." Here was there response:
As you can see, not really much of a response but it was a response. A friend of mine said two words, "Form letter." And that may be what it was, but it did come several months after my initial email. But it was less than appealing response from them. It was, just about what I predicted.
But wouldn't it have been nicer had they actually taken the time to respond to a single point I made in my original email to them? I would have rather gotten cussed out, or belittled than the predictable dribble I received. But I guess I should be happy some one took the time to respond, even if it was a "form letter" type response. But you know me, I just can't leave well enough alone. Here is my response to them:
Dear Mr. Hadfield,
Thank you for your interest in The History Channel program BANNED FROM THE BIBLE. A purpose in presenting programs about religion is to explore what is known to be historical fact as opposed to--or in agreement with--what is believed by the faithful.
We regret that you find any of our programming biased. We can assure you that offending any particular ethnic, religious, racial, political or socioeconomic group is the farthest thing from the editorial goal of any program found on The History Channel.
The producers with whom we work on religion-based programs select historians and interviewees who are educated in a variety of religious disciplines. Like any scholar, each has his or her point of view; all, however, possess credentials from recognized universities and theological institutions. Viewers often agree or disagree with a particular interviewee, and with the point of view of a particular producer. We encourage the healthy and respectful exchange of opinions on matters of faith, and appreciate your feedback on our programs.
Regards,
Viewer Relations
As you can see, not really much of a response but it was a response. A friend of mine said two words, "Form letter." And that may be what it was, but it did come several months after my initial email. But it was less than appealing response from them. It was, just about what I predicted.
But wouldn't it have been nicer had they actually taken the time to respond to a single point I made in my original email to them? I would have rather gotten cussed out, or belittled than the predictable dribble I received. But I guess I should be happy some one took the time to respond, even if it was a "form letter" type response. But you know me, I just can't leave well enough alone. Here is my response to them:
Dear Viewer Relations:I'm sure that this too will fall on deaf ears, but it is better than saying nothing at all. In fact, it reminds me of an old saying:
I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. I'm sure that you get a lot of email, and that much is probably negative concerning religious material. It is a difficult topic to address because of the emotions it generates. For that, I do appreciate the effort made. That being said, I do wish I didn't have to be "one of those people."
Unfortunately, your response didn't seem to address any of the questions I posed. I am well aware that John Domenic Crosslan has a number of degrees, as I am sure that some of the other rather questionable interviewees have them as well. But their level of higher education was not the point of the critic, nor does the number of degrees indicate ones abilities as a true scholar - it was the lack of balance in the end result of the program that I questioned. It was the historical speculations passed off as historical facts that I questioned. It was the lack of an opposing view point that I questioned. Even if you consider the Bible to be fraudulent, it is difficult to compare literature written in ca 50-70 AD with that of literature written in ca 150-350 AD, which is what the program attempted to do. It is likewise difficult if not impossible to present literature that was written 200 yrs after Jesus' death as historically accurate, which is what your program attempted to do. In addition, it is beyond my ability to understand why you would seemingly purposely leave out important details of a supposed lost gospel that undermine its very credibility. If the Bible had some of this lost gospel material in it, it would surely be castigated for doing so. But your program omitted all of this information from any critic of these supposed lost gospels? Your show didn't give the viewer the idea that this damning material was even present in its texts. That is what I'm talking about concerning the lack of scholarship and balanced appraisal. The History Channel is about history, not speculation. And when it is appropriate to speculate, both sides should be given equal opportunity to present their views. As you do with other programs, why not present the other side of the debate? Why not balance liberal scholars - like John Domenic Crosslan - with conservative scholars, and let the viewer decide. Why not present all of the facts - like that the Gospel of Thomas' has an extremely low view of women - to put its credibility into the proper perspective?
I know these facts because I read about and study these things, but the vast majority of people do not. Your presentation only served to confuse people by not providing all of the facts for an honest appraisal. As you well know, an unbalance presentation of partial facts can only hope to present a skewed understanding of a subject. This your producers did quite well. It is a shame that those who reviewed this program prior to its airing had so little interest or understanding in the subject matter as to miss so many obvious errors in basic scholarship and unbiased presentation methodologies.
Sincerely,
Steve Hadfield
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)
Comments