Rev. Jeremiah Cummings

Following in the footsteps of various figures of ridicule in “Borat,” an Orlando, Fla., preacher has sued the distributor of “Religulous” for inducing him to appear in the Bill Maher documentary under false pretenses.

Rev. Jeremiah Cummings' $50 million lawsuit against Lionsgate (NYSE: LGF) -– which even alleges “racial profiling” -- is the first to be filed over “Religulous” since its release in October. The producers, he says, told him he had been chosen to appear in a PBS documentary called “A Spiritual Journey.”

“I was not aware at that time that I would be cast in a motion picture ... entitled 'Religulous,' nor was I told that I would be interviewed for a motion picture called 'Religulous,' in which my true character was distorted onscreen before millions of viewers for laughs,” the complaint, which Cummings filed himself, says.

Among other things, Maher pokes fun at Cummings' expensive suit and lizard shoes, contrasting his attire with the humility of Jesus. The minister stutters when Maher challenges him in an on-camera interview with the Biblical quotation, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

“I am made to appear to be some money hungry preacher, which is the typical stereotype of black preachers,” Cummings, a former Muslim who is the founder and director of WICC-TV (Worldwide International Campaign for Christ Television Network) in Orlando, told Beliefnet.

The accusations will be familiar to followers of the “Borat” litigation. In no fewer than nine “Borat”-related suits, plaintiffs alleged they were duped into appearing in the hit mockumentary and exposed to ridicule, but all but one of the cases was dismissed before even reaching the discovery stage (see table).

“Religulous,” Maher's caustic take on world religion, features interviews with believers ranging from Christians and Muslims to Satanists and Hasidic Jews. Like “Borat,” it was directed by Larry Charles.

"We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews," Maher told the Los Angeles Times. "We even had a fake title for the film. We called it 'A Spiritual Journey.'"

Cummings doesn't list any causes of action but they appear to include fraud, false light invasion of privacy, and violation of publicity rights. He attached a Business Week commentary to the complaint which questions Maher's ethics, accusing him of “show[ing] almost no regard either for the truth or for the integrity of other human beings.”

Breaches of ethics, though, don't amount to torts and Cummings' suit isn't likely to fare much better than those of the “Borat” plaintiffs. For one thing, Florida's publicity rights law does not apply to “any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest.”

Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court in October declined to recognize the tort of false light “because the benefit of recognizing the tort, which only offers a distinct remedy in relatively few unique situations, is outweighed by the danger in unreasonably impeding constitutionally protected speech.” Jews for Jesus v. Rapp.

A “Borat”-like plaintiffs' backlash isn't likely against “Religulous” -- if only because it grossed about $13 million, compared to “Borat's” $128 million.

By Matthew Heller
1/28/09