Sorry, but that "actual evangelical minister" sees fit to call Michael Moore "dishonest," not only without having seen the film, but expressing the intention never to see the film.

I frequently call George W. Bush dishonest. The evidence of his dishonesty is right in front of me, almost every day, in the mainstream press and media. Where is the evidence for Michael Moore's dishonesty?

Is Moore mistaken somewhere in the film? Probably. Is he dishonest? That's another matter altogether: I doubt it. If he were intent on being dishonest, he would have had no reason to hire fact-checkers from mainstream publications. If he were willfully dishonest, he would not have dropped from the final cut some segments he did not feel were well enough verified.

Dishonesty is a question of intent and knowledge. It is clear to everyone who sees the film... as that evangelical minister did not, and will not... that Moore has no intent to deceive. Indeed, in Moore's film, the person who damns George W. Bush the most is... George W. Bush. Moore makes it clear, both in the film and in his commentary, that his presentation of facts is solid, while his statement of his own opinions is of course open to criticism.

But publicly calling someone dishonest, without even troubling to hear what he actually says, is, well, dishonest.