On the rule of law

UPDATED BELOW

From: Laurence Shandy
To: Ken Ham, president, Answers in Genesis
Re: Unbiblicality

Dear Mr. Ham,

First of all, I want to thank you and your organization, Answers in Genesis, for building such a monumental piece of satire as the Kentucky creationism museum. Taking the absurdity of creationism and displaying it in the guise of childish papier-maché "exhibits" and cartoons of men taming dinosaurs is simply comedic genius.

And this most recent row your group is having with its Australian predecessor, Creation Ministries International, is just another exquisite rung on your ladder of parody. How bold of you both to involve yourselves in a public war of words. While the spectacle of accusing each other of acting in an "unbiblical" fashion is funny enough, I believe you have a unique opportunity here to probe deeper with your craft. Yes, the C.M.I.'s claim that your organization stole their mailing lists is an obvious example of biblical lawbreaking. And your counter-argument, that the C.M.I. is committing the sin of brother suing brother, equally plays to the common, ridiculous stereotypes of the genuinely faithful. But how about really casting a satirical light on the crazier rules and regulations of the Bible?

Here's the plan: draw up a press release asking the C.M.I., as "true people of God", to answer in the affirmative to any of these questions:

1. Do you have separate grazing areas for each kind of cattle you raise? (Leviticus 19:19)

2. Do you only wear clothes made of a single fabric? (Leviticus 19:19)

3. Do you refrain from cutting your hair and shaving? (Leviticus 19:27)

4. Do you execute all adulterers? (Leviticus 20:10)

5. Do you execute anyone who has cursed his mother? (Leviticus 20:9)

6. Do you banish any couple who has sex while the woman is on her period? (Leviticus 20:18)

7. Do you ban anyone who is disfigured, blind, or lame from entering your churches? (Leviticus 21:17)

8. Do you kill anyone of a different religion? (Deuteronomy 17:2)


Notice how I threw one from Deuteronomy in? No one ever checks there when looking for crazy laws, plus it has the added bonus of sounding funny. Deuteronomy.

Anyway, I know the last thing a seasoned comedian wants is advice on how to be funny, but I think this is an idea you can't afford to pass up. Unless, of course, you can think of a better one. Frankly, calling yourself "Ham" has to be the funniest part about your whole scam. Not only was he the son of a guy who managed to fit every animal on Earth into his boat, but his kids were cursed because he gave his dad a blowjob! Christ, that stuff is crazy! (Genesis 9)

Best wishes,
Laurence Shandy, gentleman


RESPONSE
From: David Wright, answers representative, Answers in Genesis
To: Laurence Shandy
Re: Unbiblicality

Dear Laurence,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Given your arguments against the Creation Museum it is apparent you have not truly researched what we believe or what is actually in the museum. So are you suggesting the exhibits are made of paper machines (i.e. “papier-mach”)? Actually, the exhibits are of top notch quality and use some of the latest technology (hence they are not made of “papier-mache” nor are they childish as you unsubstantially claim). And what is “absurd” about creation? Proclaiming your opinion does not make for a logical argument. Did you have any arguments? I pray you will take the time to read the many articles on our website and consider that without God and His Word (the Bible) scientific inquiry, logic and reasoning and morality and ethics would not be possible. Because in a world where there is no God and everything exists by random chance then there is no basis for any of the above.

Kind regards in Christ,
David Wright


REBUTTAL
From: Laurence Shandy
To: David Wright, answers representative, Answers in Genesis
Re: Unbiblicality

Dear Mr. Wright,

I see you insist on maintaining this deadpan front as an actual creationist. I'm consistently amazed by the commitment to craft I've seen in the various religious and social satirists with whom I've corresponded. Though my letter was meant for Ken Ham, I see that you are also a valuable member of his comedy team. Still, I have a few nits to pick with your latest presentation.

While an actual creationist would most likely pretend to grasp the intricacies of Latinate logical fallacies, I think that even someone observationally challenged enough to believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old would know that I did not, in fact, present any ad hominem attack in my letter. Indeed, it's not the personalities of the creationists that I (and, let's face it, you) are parodying. Instead, it's their lack of critical thinking skills which is in question. It is, in fact, childish to reject scientific knowledge in favor of a world view which does nothing but make one feel better about his or her ignorant beliefs.

Creationists can ignore layer upon layer of geological evidence in the same way that they ignore the brutal and petty rules supposedly set forth by God in Leviticus. Similarly, a child can ignore the authority of his wiser parents and insist that there are monsters under his bed which will eat him if not for a night light's protection. However, once the child grows up, he is forced to confront the fact that there has never been any sign of monsters under his bed. The evidence is considered, and a fantasy is abandoned. The creationists' inability to move beyond this elementary, pubescent stage of reasoning is what I'm pleased to find so expertly lampooned in your museum. When faced with the reality of dinosaur fossils, creationists are forced to admit the existence of giant reptiles. But instead of following the logical conclusion that these beasts walked the Earth before humanity, thereby nullifying their own plagiarized creation myth, they instead grasp at logical straws to fit said dinosaurs into their existent, comforting legends. Such is the genius of your museum's exhibit on Noah's Ark and its insistence that dinosaurs were somehow squeezed onto the boat with every other animal on Earth. There's a movie coming out this summer which reportedly spent $170 million on computer effects to make this Ark believable. Judging from the commercials I've seen during Project Runway reruns, the filmmakers have failed.

I quote from your hilarious letter: "What is 'absurd' about creation?" I agree that the simple posing of such a question is enough to elicit a chuckle, but I think you could take this further, comedically. Instead of referring to it as "creation", why not break the concept down into its literal parts, thus shining a brighter satirical light on them? Why not phrase it this way: "What is 'absurd' about believing that a supernatural being built a planet out of nothing, sculpted humanity from clay and ribs, and forced the inhabitants of this planet to worship Him for fear of eternal suffering?" You see how the question answers itself now? You and I know how ridiculous the idea of "creation" is, but there are others who may need it spelled out more clearly. After all, your museum will be dealing with people primarily educated in Kentucky's public school system.

You also repeat the rote creationist argument that without God, there would be no morality. Again, I believe you could more effectively cut to the quick of this absurdity by perhaps adopting a character who follows this belief to its logical conclusion. This character could set up a kind of conference at the museum during which he'll tell the children all about how every day he has to stifle the almost unbearable desire to rape and murder for fear of God's wrathful judgment. The children will be forced to consider the fact that they are naturally averse to the idea of rape and murder simply out of concern for themselves and their community. Later, when they read in their history books about the countless civilizations who have raped and murdered in the name of God, the full force of the satire will finally be felt.

What do you think, Mr. Wright? I doubt you'll need it, but if ever you want to call upon my consulting services again, feel free to do so.

Best wishes,
Laurence Shandy, fan