PeterDavid.net

They probably figured that if you -really- wanted the movie stopped you could have put down your roast rack of baby long enough to have the international banking cartels pull their funding.

Life is easier for me now that I have realized that most people are: stupid, petty, fearful, ignorant and hypocrites.

As a catholic and christian I can say that what I got out of Church and my days at a Catholic school is that any opinion or lifestyle outside of what the church teaches is dangerous and can destroy the foundations of the universe and send us all to hell. So I try to ignore these people who picket out of fear and ignorance.

Now when are you going to write a Jem and the holograms comic book?

Why didn't you ask them?

I left the Catholic Church because, as Pope John Paul II once said, "The Catholic Church cannot be an association of free-thinkers." I believe that sentiment has led to many, many evils being committed in the name of serving the Almighty Collective, whether said Collective was a church, nation-state or some other entity. As a result, I realized there was no place for me in the Church.

I didn't join another Christian denomination. In fact, I don't subscribe to any religion. I am a Deist. I believe in God. I also believe He is non-denominational and unaffiliated with any political party.

This really isn't any different than Isaac Hayes claiming he quit South Park to protest their insensitivity to religion, when in fact he was fine with them mocking religion until they turned their sights on Scientology. Or a southerner I knew who complained about political correctness until he saw a Grey Poupon commercial that made fun of southerners.

When it happens to someone else, that person just needs to suck it up. If it happens to you, it's injustice.

That's human nature for you.

PAD, I think the phrase "One side fits all" would be appropriate in describing their views.

As in, it's ok as long as it fits with their side of things. But if they disagree with it? You'll burn in hell; there is no open discussion allowed.

What I find interesting is the fact that you not only have these morons picketing the movie, the film has been pretty much panned by the critics too (Ebert & Roeper gave it thumbs up though).

Yet it was a financial hit. It makes you wonder if any of the critics had an effect one way or the other with who went to see this film.

"Why didn't you ask them?"

Because I was running incredibly late to the Broadway Bears auction right down the street.

PAD

Bill Myers, with regard to God’s political affiliation, perhaps you recall a _Doonesbury_ cartoon from the 1984 presidential election campaign when someone (I think it’s Mike Doonsebury) is watching TV and a Reagan campaign commercial comes on:

“Hi, this s God,” the commercial begins.

“uh, oh”, Mike thinks.

God goes on to plug the merits of the Republican Party, and the commercial ends with these words: “paid for by the Reagan/God Re-Election Committee.”

Regarding the Catholic Church, I was raised Catholic, but am no longer part of the church. The only time I go is Christmas and Easter and that’s mainly because the whole family goes. And I don’t have any problem disagreeing with the Pope (whether it be John Paul II (who really should have called himself George Ringo since we’d already had a John Paul) or Benedict) about anything. To my way of thinking, there’s a higher authority than the pope.

Me.

Likewise, for yourself, _you_ outrank the pope in terms of what you think is right or wrong about a particular church-related matter.

It’s too bad John Paul would think that the Catholic Church, “cannot be an association of free thinkers.” It’s also a bit ironic, given his anti-Communist stance. Still, there were a lot of positive things about the man, and it would’ve been fascinating to sit down with him and discuss and debate various aspects of theology. I often enjoy doing that with friends in the religious life.

PAD,

If you hadn’t been running late, _would_ you have asked those protesters, or would you have found yourself a brick wall to talk to, and gotten a better response from it?

I wonder how many of those people protesting the film actually saw it, or read the book. Myself, I’ve done neither, so I can’t comment on how good or bad either might be. I am reminded, however, of protesters, who, when _The Last Temptation of Christ_ came out, condemned the movie, but didn’t bother to see it. It’s one thing to say one doesn’t want to see a film because they disagree with the subject matter. It’s quite another to urge others not to see it without knowing what it’s about- beyond vague ideas.

And in the case of _The Last Temptation of Christ_, that temptation was to renounce God and live a normal human life with a wife and family. In the end, Jesus _rejected_ that temptation and died on the cross. Now, had he given in to that temptation, I can see why people would be angry. But he _didn’t_ give in to it. He resisted it. And yet these ignorant people protested the film, as if there was no _possible_ way Jesus could have been tempted to recant. After all, he didn’t have the slightest bit of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemane, right? Right?

Somewhat related, could someone explain why Jesus (or anyone) would say, “get behind me, Satan”? Would you really want Satan _behind_ you, where you’d be vulnerable to a stab in the back? Not me. I’d want him in front of me, so I could keep an eye on him.

Rick

Gee I don't know Peter. By the same token, I wonder if Jews will be supporting Christians, by picketing the DaVinci code. Good or bad, it's human nature to take up causes than concern one's self/interest.

It's possible that they, like myself, didn't consider THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to actually be anti-Semitic. One assumes that this would hamper one's desire to protest.

I tried to read The DaVinci Code and gave up. I have too much good stuff to get through and it was just too poorly written for my taste. It made me nostalgic for the subtle poetic prose of Jacqueline Susann. But to each its own, obviously a lot of folks enjoyed it and I love Mario Puzu's The Godfather novel so who am I to judge.

If there is anything to be offended by it's the insistence from the author and some of his more brain damaged readers that this claptrap is based in reality. the central premise is taken from a well exposed hoax but Dan Brown (wisely)treats it all as though it were the product of deep research. Well, God bless him, a man needs to make a buck. You can't blame Erich Van Daaniken if people continue to buy his nonsense.

Would a movie that used, as a premise, the idea that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was anything other than a blood libel have even been made? Never mind, actually it did get made, but it's only being shown in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other places where the locals have a well demonstrated low tolerance for people casting aspersions on their religion.

>>>
Somewhat related, could someone explain why Jesus (or anyone) would say, “get behind me, Satan”? Would you really want Satan _behind_ you, where you’d be vulnerable to a stab in the back? Not me. I’d want him in front of me, so I could keep an eye on him.

Reminds me of the old George Carlin bit. He wonders why people who put little statues of Jesus on their dashboards always have him turned around to face them...when Jesus should be keeping his eyes on the road!!!

re: the line -- IIRC, Jesus isn't talking to Satan, but to Peter. The apostles are urging him to lie low and avoid being captured by the Romans. In so many words, Jesus replies that to avoid the Crucifixion would miss the whole point of this Son Of God exercise, and that Peter should led him lead.

PAD,

Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.

For the record, yes, I have read the book (as well as Angels & Demons). It is not worth even debating. Scholars who are not "conservative Christians" have done a far better job than I could pointing out the inaccuracies.

Have a nice day enjoying the protesters.

Iowa Jim

The DaVinci Code rewrites history
as much as
The New Testament and therefore The Passion of the Christ rewrote history

Now, certainly, there are people who believe the NT.
And there are people who believe The Davinci Code.

You may say that those who believe The Davinci Code are being misled by a work of fiction. Or by a hoax.

Yes, I agree.

You might even point out that it is a biblical crime to lead people astray from the truth.

I would agree with that too.

Of course, it goes without saying, that all of the above is my own opinion, and not necessarily anyone else's.

Posted by: Iowa Jim at May 23, 2006 04:54 PM

PAD,

Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.

I didn't see The Passion of the Christ, but I have read that it deviated from the New Testament of the Bible in many significant respects. Which is ironic, because the Bible ends with a warning of dire consequences for anyone who adds to or subtracts from its words.

And I'm getting a little weary of people bitching about "rewriting history." Such bitching assumes that the history one originally learned is absolute truth incarnate. That's a fallacy borne of the human tendency to believe that what you grew up believing must be true, because it is true and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong because, well, what you were taught as a young'un is true.

See the flaw in the logic there?

"Rewriting history" should not be a dirty word, and one should not be lumping things that are ostensibly hoaxes, like the Davinci Code, together with, say, efforts to bring to light new historical evidence that may alter our perception of what has gone before.

By the way, most people who bitch about "rewriting history" are angry because it's liberals who are doing it. As though it was OK when conservatives left shit out or glossed stuff over to support their agenda. Liberals and conservatives have both run roughshod over history to support their own worldview. Anyone who thinks their "side" is the one with the clean hands in that respect is blinder than blind.

And if you're relying on the history you learned in grammar school to help shape your world view, I suggest you make an effort to educate yourself a little further. Whether you were taught the conservative distortions like my parents were, or the liberal distortions like I was, you've still been presented with a distorted view.

I don't know exactly what THE PASSION did that deviated so much from the New Testament. Most of the complaints were that Gibson dwelled too much on the scourging but while the Bible doesn't go into the gruesome details, I don't see that as a major "rewriting". But maybe someone out there can tell me what was changed.

Anyway, getting upset over as minor a bit of piffle as DAVINCI CODE seems a waste of energy. The only person I know who read the book and liked it and has seen the movie said they were let down. Since I didn't even like the book I think I'll wait until X3 comes out--I have enough to do this week anyway. It'll be on DVD soon enough.

If anyone really wants to make a movie that will explore the origins of a major modern religion and ignite a firestorm of controversy, Cristianity isn't the one to explore...but then again, filmmakers generally like their firestorms to be allegorical, not literal.

There's a really great webcomic out there called Least I Could Do that just made a good point about this. :)

First of all, the church is against the movie because it makes them look bad, not Jesus, and those who are protesting the movie for being anti-Jesus are being misled by the church. Even if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that only makes his sacrifice on the cross more poignant. Instead of just giving up his life, he was giving up a life with a loving wife and a child on the way. But the church says that it is blasphemous to treat Jesus as man. To the church, Jesus was either God or man, he can't be both, even though his being both was the whole point. Basically the church (like a certain administration that comes to mind, but that is a topic for another time) refuses to revise its position in light of new information.

This is the same state of mind that leads them to espouse intelligent design, in spite of all the evidence in favor of evolution, and say that anyone who believes otherwise is at best an atheist. Again, you are either religious or a scientist, you can't be both. Is it because scientists are a bunch of Satan-worshipers out to discredit God? No, there are many religious scientists who think quite the opposite: by studying Creation they are better able to understand God.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm NOT saying that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Is there evidence that he was you might ask? I ask you, is there evidence that he wasn't? You'll no doubt refer me to the Bible. Even allowing that it was indeed dictated by God, it was transcribed by man, and is man truly capable of truly understanding God's message? Furthermore, it is a highly figurative document that has been copied and translated many times, again by man, over nearly two millennia. Now you say that in this document, there is no indication that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Maybe not explicitly, but I ask you this? To whom did he first go to after rising from the dead?

Now, in order to protect its source of power, the church feels it needs to defend what it said hundreds of years ago as absolute truth. But in doing so, they alienate anyone who embraces historical and scientific evidence. In the end, their you're-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality is a double-edged sword that hurts them as much as it does those they wield it against.

Bill:

I'm guessing that John Paul II would have agreed with you on the point that you're a higher authority on your own beliefs than the Pope. When he talked about Catholicism not becoming "an association of free-thinkers" he was referring strictly to Catholic doctrine. I'm going from memory here, but that's the impression I got at the time from the context.

He wasn't saying (for example) "Catholics of the world, never give the topic of abortion a single thought; this big hat means I get to tell YOU what you think on that subject." He was saying "Look, if you _don't_ believe that abortion is wrong, then you're not Catholic. Because over here we regard that as a pretty big deal." In effect, he was comparing a Catholic who uses birth control to a Vegan who eats Big Macs.

That line, incidentally, was one of the reasons why I left the Church after college. I was a "cafeteria Catholic," enjoying the bits that I agreed with and cheerfully skipping over the things I didn't agree with (like the Church's stances against contraception and abortion). I don't think the Pope was so much attacking the concept of Free Thought so much as he was the speaking against the concept of claiming to be a Catholic without taking the whole package.

In a way, it was good advice. One interpretation is "Catholicism: love it or leave it" but I prefer to see it as "be honest in your beliefs; if Catholicism isn't doing it for you, seek out a faith that fits."

Which is why, though I haven't been back to church in more than ten years, and I object to many Catholic principles as strongly as I ever did, I still have a lot of respect for the Church.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 07:32 PM

I don't know exactly what THE PASSION did that deviated so much from the New Testament. Most of the complaints were that Gibson dwelled too much on the scourging but while the Bible doesn't go into the gruesome details, I don't see that as a major "rewriting". But maybe someone out there can tell me what was changed.

"Someone out there?" Aw, Bill, you cut me to the quick! I didn't come to this party without a dish to pass.

I've read many articles about how Mel Gibson took liberties with the Gospels, but this Wikipedia article is the best I could do on short notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_of_the_Christ

Gibson's deviations from scripture may seem minor. But Gibson defended his movie against critics by asserting that "The Passion of the Christ" was an attempt to portray "the truth," which implies that the choices he made were not based on his artistic inclinations but rather on some objective standard.

Well, if you're a Christian, as I used to be, the Bible is the gold standard for "the truth." You can interpret it all sorts of ways -- hence the many denominations of Christianity -- but the Bible is the foundation of it all.

Gibson can't have it both ways. If his work was meant to portray the "truth" as Christians see it, he should have stuck with the Bible. Since he didn't, he would have been well served to stand up and take the heat for his artistic choices.

Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 23, 2006 08:01 PM

Bill:

I'm guessing that John Paul II would have agreed with you on the point that you're a higher authority on your own beliefs than the Pope. When he talked about Catholicism not becoming "an association of free-thinkers" he was referring strictly to Catholic doctrine. I'm going from memory here, but that's the impression I got at the time from the context.

He wasn't saying (for example) "Catholics of the world, never give the topic of abortion a single thought; this big hat means I get to tell YOU what you think on that subject." He was saying "Look, if you _don't_ believe that abortion is wrong, then you're not Catholic. Because over here we regard that as a pretty big deal." In effect, he was comparing a Catholic who uses birth control to a Vegan who eats Big Macs.

Actually, that's a good analogy and one that makes my point for me. Many vegans aren't satisfied with simply eschewing meat themselves; they feel they must prevent the rest of us from doing so. Devout Catholics, like most religionists, believe that you will go to Hell if you don't believe as they do. Which is why the Catholic Church tries to put pressure on Catholic politicians in the executive and legistlative branches to enshrine Catholic doctrine in civil policy.

Catholics aren't the only ones who do this. Which is one of the many reasons why I'm not religious.

That line, incidentally, was one of the reasons why I left the Church after college. I was a "cafeteria Catholic," enjoying the bits that I agreed with and cheerfully skipping over the things I didn't agree with (like the Church's stances against contraception and abortion). I don't think the Pope was so much attacking the concept of Free Thought so much as he was the speaking against the concept of claiming to be a Catholic without taking the whole package.

I'm not sure how that's any different than what I'm saying. Devout Catholics (the ones who accept the "whole package") believe their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation, and that those who don't share their faith are misguided at best. By that logic, if you know what's good for you, you'll become a Catholic. And to be a good Catholic, you can't question Catholic doctrine, but instead must accept all of it.

How is that not attacking the concept of free thought?

In a way, it was good advice. One interpretation is "Catholicism: love it or leave it" but I prefer to see it as "be honest in your beliefs; if Catholicism isn't doing it for you, seek out a faith that fits."

I believe that kind of thinking is what's led the Catholic Church to commit grievous sins throughout the ages, like punishing Galileo for making scientific discoveries that contradicted Church doctrine, the oppression of non-Catholics through the Spanish Inquisition, and the cover-ups that let priests get away with molesting children (and while I acknowledge that the scope of the problem is open to debate, I don't think the existence of the problem is equally open).

Any organization that advocates a belief system that is not open to question is, in my view, inevitably going to corrupt itself.

Which is why, though I haven't been back to church in more than ten years, and I object to many Catholic principles as strongly as I ever did, I still have a lot of respect for the Church.

I don't share that respect. Obviously, though, you're entitled to have that respect whether I agree with it or not.

Honestly, the opposite of what they want to happen will happen. The controversy will cause more news about the movie, resulting in more people getting interested and going to see it. The controversy is probably responsible for at least half of the first couple of weeks of box office for The Last Temptation of Christ, as the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid.

So, in a way, the movie's producers and distributers should be thanking the protesters. Their actions result in one more sound byte for people to listen to.

Read book, didn't see movie. Already suffered enough with Dan Browns atrocious writing, and loose (to put it gently) treatment of the truth.

Actually, truth be told, I was offended by the book. Not as a Christian (though I am a devout Christian, this was too obviously BS to get ticked off about) but as a historian. This guy just, like, made shit up!!! To give my favorite example: When the first go over to Leigh Teabing's house he says something to the effect that "At the Council of Nicea, they voted on the divinity of Jesus."

Acutally, no. What they voted on was the issue of homoousios versus heteroousios, Or whether Jesus was of the same substance (homoousios) or different substance (heteroousios) then God the father. Also, the Arian controversy. Basically, this guy, Arian, said that Jesus was LESS than God. Still Divine, simply Created (think Zeus and Apollo. Both Gods, but one was more powerful) At no point was his Divinity an issue. Only a few Gnostic groups claimed he was all man, and they were never even close to mainstream.

That, and dozens of other factual errors, really, really, really piss me off.

Stupid book, stupid formulaic plot, heck, half the reason its as big as it is is all the kerflufful made over it. Still, all this protesting at least keeps the Whack-jobs from trying to get mandatory prayer, the ten commandments and Intelligent Design in the school system.

Maybe we should write a book about a Charasmatic Christian leader who gets a TV show then gets little old ladys in Duluth to send him their welfare checks to "get prayer back in schools.." then laughs all the way to the bank. I even have a good title: "The 800 Club."

Catchy, huh?

Hey Bill, no offence intended--I figured if you hadn't seen it you might not be the one to have the details. Thanks for the wiki link (And really, I recommend the movie. Great filmmaking, one reason I'm so looking forward to Gibson's Apocalypto.)

If the wikipedia entry is any indication, yeah, the "deviations" are definitely minor--if they are deviations at all.

Examples- Exactly how Judas died is not certain--the accounts differ--But Gibson can hardly be blamed for going with the traditional and most likely method of hanging.(Matt. 27 3-8 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.)

Gibson has several rabbis object to the trial of Jesus, which is not in the Bible but a reasonable addition given the irregularities of the trial from Jewish law. Odd that Gibson would be criticized for showing that the death of Jesus was NOT desired by all Jews.

Caiaphas is the one to answer Pilate's questions ("What shall I do with this man?", etc) while the Gospels only record "the chief priests," "the crowd," or "the Jews" as answering (never a specific character). Again, no big deal and ANOTHER case of Gibson avoiding a choice that could be construed as fomenting hatred of Jews.

Barabbas is called a "murderer" in the subtitles, Yeah, and in Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 it states that Barabbas is in jail for murder. I mean, c'mon.

Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased, treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called Jew with a sneer. Only Simon’s name, place of origin, and the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels.
Another reasonable choice and ANOTHER case of Gibson making a choice that portrayed the Jews sympathetically.

The same criminal was shown crucified on Jesus's right. According to Luke 23.39, the criminal is crucified on Jesus' left while the criminal who said to Him, "...remember me when You come into Your kingdom " was crucified on Jesus' right.

Ok. I'm convinced. Burn in hell, Gibson!

Seriously, most of the "deviations" listed are pretty nit picky or not really deviations at all. I'm surprised, given the charges of anti-Semitism leveled at the film, to see that several were seemingly chosen to deflect criticism of Jews. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Y'know, my remarks may make it sound like I hate religious people. I don't. I disagree with them is all.

My parents are devout Catholics and we still love each other and get along just fine. Some of my best friends are religious. :)

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 09:02 PM

Ok. I'm convinced. Burn in hell, Gibson!

Now, Bill, I wasn't calling for Gibson to burn in Hell over this. Just a little extra time in Purgatory is all. :)

Seriously, I haven't seen the movie, so I think I've gone as far out as I can on this limb. I won't criticize a movie I haven't seen. I just thought Gibson's defense of the movie rang a little hollow is all. He made some artistic choices, and he should simply say, "Yeah, that was my artistic choice."

The controversy is probably responsible for at least half of the first couple of weeks of box office for The Last Temptation of Christ, as the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid.

By who? It may not be Scorcese's best work but it's a very good film.

If you meant The Passion...with $611,899,420 worldwide gross and many critics (like Ebert) giving it top ratings, I can't see that being a valid judgement either.

Some of my best friends are religious. :)

yeah, but would you want your daughter to marry one?

My sister's assessment of The DaVinci Code (the book) was "I want my time back." Even as a Catholic, she seemed to be more offended by the writing than she ever was by the ideas.

I've avoided the book based on her review. When I was still in the bookstore business, it was a bit awkward when people asked about it. I couldn't exactly say "Yeah, I couple of people I know read it and they said it sucked." I settled for "Um, it's really popular . . . "

I am so glad I got a new job before the paperback edition came out . . .

I agree with Bill Myers. The more I learn about history, the more I realize that you really can't unconditionally believe anything, nor can you unconditionally dismiss anything. And the further back you go in time, the truer this becomes. When you get to biblical times, really, nobody knows anything. You kind of just have to examine all the evidence at hand and reach your own conclusions.

Is The Da Vinci Code accurate? Maybe. Probably not (it is, after all, a novel, something many people don't seem to understand). Does it matter? Hell, no. All I know is that the book is entertaining as hell and, more than that, it made me think and see the world in new ways. It's a fascinating read, whether you buy into it or not (and really, there's no real reason not to buy into it for what it is... a speculative work of fiction... We don't condemn The Lord of the Rings for rewriting history, do we?).

I also liked the movie, too, though not as much.

I'm not sure that Peter's original point is valid, though. Why would they protest something based on the way other people feel about it? They most likely DON'T feel that the The Passion of the Christ has an anti-Semitic message (not that they would protest it even if they did, but still). Personally, I think both sets of protesters are nuts. I think they're both good movies, and I found nothing insulting about either of them. But then, I'm an atheist, so I'm not in the best position to judge.

Okay, people don't like the book, people don't like the movie, WHATEVER. I don't really care. Don't REALLY have enough interest in either to try to carve out time for either.

One thing cracks me up, though. Pretty much every cable channel and a few of the broadcast ones have had their researchers going over everything with a fine tooth comb to find evidence for this claptrap one way or the other. Now, according to, well, the Bible, this stuff happened TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Give or take a week or two. Now, people can't find out what happened to Hoffa, Natalie Holloway, or this country's sense of humor, and these are (fairly) recent incidents. People are basing their arguments on information that has passed through so many mouths before it was written down IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TIME AND LANGUAGE that who knows WHAT the heck really happened? Now, I was raised Catholic. Haven't gone to church since my Dad's funeral. (No real reason other than the fact that I work fifteen hours on Saturdays and another nine on Sundays.) But even still, a lot of the stuff just didn't sit right with me. Blame the fact that I was born in the early '70's if you want, but I like things I believe in to make sense and be consistent. A lot of stuff in the Church ain't either. I have a real problem with the whole "THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT IS SO!" attitude. God, Gaia, The Great Green Arkleseizure, whatever, gave us free will. Gave us the need to question. And yet a lot of religions out there feel the need to drive that out of us.

Don't EVEN get me started on James Dobson. Spongebob gay? How can an asexual creature be gay? Man's got a little too much time on his hands, methinks.

Bill Mulligan,



Without spending too much time looking for reviews on a movie that I have no urge to see, I did find these two after very little time:



Scorsese applies his usual flair to the proceedings, but takes things over-the-top on a few occasions. Disorienting jump cuts are ever-present, particularly during the various dream sequences that play out. This makes the already-confusing film even more difficult to follow, while the lack of any kind of an introduction to the characters prevents bible newbies like myself from ever really getting into the movie.



- David Nusair, Reelfilm.com



"The Last Temptation of Christ" is a probing, unflinching film. And Scorsese's motive here is to stimulate and provoke, not to sensationalize. The director's failure, though, comes at the most basic level. In spite of all he accomplishes, he is unable to bring Jesus close to us, to realize his stated goal of creating a universal figure who symbolizes the spiritual anguish of all men. Somehow Christ's suffering seems to have been fetishized, and there's an almost creepy kind of glee in the filmmakers' presentation of the corruptions here. The result is an inescapable sadomasochistic tone. Too often, you can feel them, perhaps in spite of themselves, taking pride in their own outrageousness.



- Hal Hinson, The Washington Post



So, no, not universally loved. And as an adult when it was a new film, I recall quite a few people panning it.

Peter, I know what would’ve happened if you had asked them your hypothetical question (which may be another legitimate answer to Tim Butler’s question): They would’ve told you that how the Jews were portrayed in The Passion was accurate, and based on fact (y’know, except for that nasty little business about how history recorded Pilate as being a bloodthirsty sociopath who had no problem killing people left and right, and the likelihood that it was instead blamed on the Jews because blaming the Pilate, a Roman, might’ve made it harder to lobby the Romans to adopt Christianity as their new official religion).

Me, what I found most interesting about the film is how, based on what I remember from the book from reading it last summer, is how certain elements of the movie cast Opus Dei in a more positive light, and Dan Brown’s ideas in a more negative one. In the book, for example, Langdon nods and accepts everything Teabing says about the Council of Nicea, and their hand in the status of Christ’s divinity, but in the movie, Langdon virulently disagree on this point, getting into a heated exchange that Sophie has to break up. This is pretty clever on the part of Ron Howard and crew, because it casts the main good guy in the role of Dan Brown’s critics, and Teabing, who critics of the novel may see as espousing Brown’s own theories, as the central bad guy, and a crackpot. In addition, Bezu Fache’s tie clip is a silver crucifix with 13 embedded black onyxes, but IIRC, in the movie, it’s the symbol of Opus Dei, and it’s established Fache himself is a member of that prelate. The book does not contain the plot point about Aringarosa lying to Fache about Langdon confessing a murder to him, a manipulation of Fache that Fache realizes and confronts Arignarosa about by the end of the film. And when Sophie questions Langdon about the murderer of her grandfather being Opus Dei on their way to Château Villette, Langdon says, “Not Opus Dei,” as a way to indicate that the murderer was not acting on behalf of the organization in any official capacity. (IIRC, the same point was made by the Vatican. And of course, the bit about the Pope removing Opus Dei’s status as an official prelature is not in the movie.

All these elements serve to emphasize that Opus Dei is not the villain in the film (much as the Illuminati [Spoiler Warning] were not really behind the kidnappings/murders in Angels and Demons), and that Aringarosa and Silas were rogue agents, and being manipulated by Teabing, making the true villain of the story a fanatic English knight and critic of the Church. While Teabing’s role in this regard is also in the book, all these alterations emphasize that Opus Dei is not complicit in the crimes committed in the movie. I

I haven’t noticed anyone pointing this out, and somehow, I’m not holding my breath that anyone will.

And as far as Brown’s writing, I agree that his character’s lack depth, and that his constant digressions for purposes of impressing the reader with various bits of extraneous trivia not related to the plot are beyond annoying; The book was entertaining to me, however, because of the experience of watching the treasure hunt and the series of codes unfold. It was also fascinating because I love learning about all those little bits of religious history. It’s unfortunate, of course, that I later learned that so much of that latter element were false.

Bill Myers: This really isn't any different than Isaac Hayes claiming he quit South Park to protest their insensitivity to religion, when in fact he was fine with them mocking religion until they turned their sights on Scientology.
Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.

Iowa Jim: Talk about comparing apples to oranges. If The Passion of the Christ rewrote history about Moses or King David, you might have a point.
Luigi Novi: So you’re saying that the portrayal of the Jews in that movie was not merely accurate with respect to the Bible, but to history as well? Sorry, but it wasn’t really accurate to either. (See above.)

And Bill Myers is correct, in that historical revisionism is not an immoral or odious practice; it’s a legitimate part of modern historiography. (Read James W. Loewens’ Lies My Teacher Told Me and Lies Across America.)

Robert Fuller: When you get to biblical times, really, nobody knows anything.
Luigi Novi: Well, I wouldn’t go that far. A bit too nihilistic for my taste, and not in keeping with the evidence we have for much of history.

Umm, isn't THE DA VINCE CODE something called... FICTION??? Dan Brown isn't using this as a springboard to launch a new religion (hello, DIANETICS!) or as a scholarly assault on the divinity of Christ. It's an action/investigation book.

As for the discussions of Christianity, I consider myself a Funtamentalist Agnostic: I'm sure I don't have all the answers. And to quote Graham Chapman, "There's nothing an Agnostic can't do if he's really not sure if he believes in anything or not."

James, I think the reason for this controversey is that the note in the beginning of the book claims that all descriptions of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals is factually accurate. Granted, this note does not include "history" in it, but I think the possible effect it may have on readers is that it may cause them to assuem that even descriptions of historical events are accurate as well. It also contains some malignant descriptions of Opus Dei and the Vatican, and there may be the fear that readers will assume that these assertions as also factual, or based on some fact.

Rose, I never meant to sugget that last temptation was universally beloved, just that saying that "the movie itself is acknowledged to be horrid." was far too great an overstatement. I' suspect that one could easily find negative reviews of EVERY movie, even classics like Casablanca or Gigli.

regarding the accuracy of the Davinci Code...obviously we can never know for sure what happened 2000 years ago, but it's safe to say that we CAN be sure that the Priory of Sion--apparently a major plot point--is a silly piece of 20th century humbug and even at that it had nothing to do with the Goddess worship that Brown uses.

Maybe for his next book Brown will use the Paluxy Footprints to reveal how scientists are suppressing the truth of Intelligent Design. (It's well known that Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed).

(Note to the literal minded; the paragraph above is actually bullshit).

And now for something completely silly...

If you thought there weren't enough tie-in works to THE DA VINCI CODE -- books, DVDs, tapes, etc. going over the truth or falsehood of it -- you're in luck with another genre entering the fray: porn! Yes, Hustler has released THE DA VINCI LOAD. I'd love to post the description here (it's ridiculous, what you'd expect from an adult film, and a truly unique twist on the original's plot) but I suspect that could get nme booted from here. I bet anyone reading this can Google this description. Enjoy!

Heh. I wonder what the critic who thought Last Temptation of Christ was "sadomasochistic" thought of The Passion?

Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something. other than talking out of your Ass. but I guess thats what you do most days. I now return you to your liberal choir

...even classics like Casablanca or Gigli.

Bill...

Never. Ever. EVER!!! compare those two movies again.

I know you are joking, but so help me, I will ressurect the rotting, large carcase of Alfred Hitchcock and have him come after you. With a bunch of birds.

Just staring at you.

(PS: Yes, I know Hitchcock didn't direct Casablanca. I dont care. He's a lot scarier than Michael Curtiz)

"Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something."

I don't understand this sentance. What do you mean by "how messages" in the movie?

Such hubbub and turmoil over the cinema always makes me think about the political atmosphere surrounding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. The merits, accuracy, and message of the film are for this example irrelevent, but it's release cultivated a class of people decrying a movie they had never seen based solely on information that might as well have come from AOL's Moviefone (a more prestigous source of information there may never be).

I don't have a point, it's just what I always think of.

"Ask Micheal Medved about how anti-Semitic messages in Passion you might learn something."

Ask your English teacher how to construct a sentence, you might do the same.

Boy, I missed this site.

Micheal Medved is just someone who was given a soapbox and made the mistake that many do, he took it seriously. Generally I find his opinions to be less this-is-what-I-think than I-am-the-Archcritic-Micheal-you-must-listen-am-I-doing-a-good-job-Conservatives? Just because he SAYS there are anti-Semitic messages there, don't make it so. Wonder what he says when he hears Snowblind?

In terms of parody novels
The Da Vinchi Cod has been around for a while.
I had to walk through a picket-line to watch the Last Temptation of Christ and afterwards I asked if anyone there had seen the film. No but they knew it was bad and bad for Christians even though it was based on a work of fiction.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 23, 2006 09:20 PM

yeah, but would you want your daughter to marry one?

Sweet Jesus, I have a daughter???? Why the hell am I always the last one to find out about these things????

Posted by Luigi Novi at May 23, 2006 11:15 PM

Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.

I tried the link but a got a "page can't be found" error. Besides, I'm a little skeptical about the veracity of anything I see on Fox News. After all, they're the folks that aired the "documentary" (and I use the term loosely here) Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, a program that was nothing but a collection of grossly inaccurate statements made by pundits who wouldn't know critical thinking or reporting if either bit them in the ass.

I've seen statements from Isaac Hayes that make it explicitly clear that he quit South Park because of their "religious intolerance." Moreover, his threshold for their "religious intolerance" wasn't exceeded until the Scientology episode. I'm open to evidence that the real story is something else -- but you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of Fox News as a source.

Luigi Novi: Actually, Bill, he didn’t quite SP over their Scientology riffs. The real story is at: ">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188463,00.html.

Wow, Luigi, talk about your credibility-killer.

You quote an article from FoxNews? I think you better find a more legitimate outlet to back this up, as I currently cannot find anything that outright says this story is true.

I'm finding plenty of articles saying that the FoxNews article is bs, or that it's merely bad rumors, including one article with a comment from Hayes's spokeswoman saying that his having a stroke was a false report.

I've even found one article, from People magazine, that considers the two issues, a rumored stroke and his leaving South Park, as separate issues unrelated to one another. This while discussing the fact that Hayes and his wife just had a child 10 days ago.

I tried the link but a got a "page can't be found" error.

The link picked up the period at the end of the sentence is why.

Andy Ihnatko,

I know Jesus was talking to Peter, calling him Satan (metaphorically); but whether being metaphorical or literal, you still have to wonder about the phrasing of that statement.

By the way, it was me who said there's a higher authority than the pope- myself. Though, I think Bill Myers implied as much with regard to himself, in his initial post.

Rick

Isnt the whole thing about Christianity is the right to chose what you believe? God gives you the choice whether you want to believe if Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of Man. He's not going to beg you to come... You've got to go to Him...and a movie isn't going to change that.

Anyway, if someone is going to base their entire moral and theological belief on a two hour movie, maybe they shouldn't be allowed out in the first place.

Bob Ahrens

I'm equally confused about why, now that's it's a "movie", we keep hearing about this. One can logically conclude that, since this book has been a best seller for years now, and the protests were nowhere nearly to this magnitude, most people who are out there protesting probably don't read very much. This, in turn can lend one to form an opinion of the calibur of education said protestors have had in their lives.

Furthermore, it's a FICTIONAL MOVIE. Anyone who interprets the book or the movie as anything but has more than a few screws loose.

Personally I think most religions should be dumped into the bin by reason of the over used, "Any club that would have me as a member...". If the Christains or Moslems had anything of value they wouldn't be trying to give it away to every passerby. At least in this respect the Jews have some self-respect and seem to discourage most from even trying to marry into the religion. Like a good marriage they're trying to keep the mystery alive. ;)

As to the wack-jobs out picketing the movie; it's best you walk on as they seem prone to casting stones before they turn the other cheek.

I could go on for a couple of hours espousing theories I have come up with during on this hoopla. I was raised Catholic and some of the things I was taught don't make sense. Also, some of the ideas presented ( like Jesus being married)I would like to be true. I think it adds to the credibility of his message.

I read the book((found the paperback cheap) and had an opportunity to see the movie ( since someone else was paying, why not?) The book was a pleasant read and if you read to the very end actually let the Church off the hook. The movie did too even more so.

The protesting folks obviously haven't actually read the book or seen the film (they never do).

There weren't any protesters at the theatre I attended, but I had my answere ready.

"I was raised Catholic. It's a Movie! I'll tell you what you have always told Star Trek Fans!
Get a LIFE!"

Posted by Bill Myers

Actually, that's a good analogy and one that makes my point for me. Many vegans aren't satisfied with simply eschewing meat themselves; they feel they must prevent the rest of us from doing so. Devout Catholics, like most religionists, believe that you will go to Hell if you don't believe as they do. Which is why the Catholic Church tries to put pressure on Catholic politicians in the executive and legistlative branches to enshrine Catholic doctrine in civil policy.

We're entering into one of those areas where I need to consult with Someone Who Knows This Stuff For A Living, but IIRC that's not true of Catholics. You don't go to Hell because of failing to do something (like failure to be a Catholic)...you go because of something you actively did. Plus, it has to be a fairly heavy sin, plus you have to be both aware of the severity of the action and unrepentant. Subtle point, but there it is.

I also think that the Church trying to make Catholic doctrine into civil policy is incorrect. There are no shortage of examples of the Church making it clear that they don't like a certain law or policy (opposing everything from capital punishment to same-sex marriage) but I also know that more than once, JP II beat up a few bishops when they pushed that button too hard. It would certainly be inaccurate to suggest that they regard politics as part of their mission, as many in the Christian Right do.

(But again...this is the point where I'd email some Jesuit friends of mine.)

I'm not sure how that's any different than what I'm saying. Devout Catholics (the ones who accept the "whole package") believe their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation, and that those who don't share their faith are misguided at best. By that logic, if you know what's good for you, you'll become a Catholic. And to be a good Catholic, you can't question Catholic doctrine, but instead must accept all of it.How is that not attacking the concept of free thought?

How can that be interpreted as an attack? They're not suppressing other opinions...they're just refusing to support them as articles of Catholic faith. They're saying that if you want to play baseball, don't show up with a hockey stick. They're not trying to forcibly take away your stick and put a bat in your hand.

Also, devout Catholics in particular wouldn't believe that their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation. Jesus died and redeemed our sins (according to the playbook)...meaning, we're already Saved, even the non-Catholics.

I believe that kind of thinking is what's led the Catholic Church to commit grievous sins throughout the ages, like punishing Galileo for making scientific discoveries that contradicted Church doctrine, the oppression of non-Catholics through the Spanish Inquisition, and the cover-ups that let priests get away with molesting children (and while I acknowledge that the scope of the problem is open to debate, I don't think the existence of the problem is equally open). Any organization that advocates a belief system that is not open to question is, in my view, inevitably going to corrupt itself.

Mmm...Galileo was put on trial 400 years ago, and the first Crusade was 900 years ago. Plus, in 1100, the Papacy was a political entity, and the situation with Galileo was complicated. Copernicus wasn't jailed when he put forth a heliocentric theory 100 years earlier...in fact, cardinals had been encouraging him to run with the idea.

The Church's longtime coverup of sexual abuse is a sin that they'll be paying for for decades to come (rightly so). The only thing that mitigates their reaction (albeit in a trivial sense) is the fact that for most of the 20th century, most of society had the same absurd attitude towards the problem. Child molesters were creepy weirdos, strangers...not relatives, not teachers, and certainly not the parish priest. Of course, they're still on the hook for believing that molesters could be "cured" through therapy and prayer.

When I think of the problem of having to take all of Catholic doctrine as a unit and the Pope having the final, incontrovertible say, I think of the Church's continued opposition to contraception, even in light of the recent (by Catholic standards) development of AIDS...a fatal, epidemic disease whose most effective enemy (apart from abstinence) is a condom. Millions of preventable deaths, yet the Pope sticks to its guns. Nonetheless, it's not hard to find priests and bishops openly discussing their desire to change this doctrine.

I did read an interesting analysis of the selection of this Pope, though: a longtime observer hypothesized that the reason why the Cardinals elected such an elderly Pontiff was to grease the rails for some fairly major changes in doctrine. The theory is that they intentionally chose a Pope who was (a) part of JP II's school, and (b) elderly. So Benedict XVI sits for ten or fifteen years, influenced by JP II's thinking but not strictly following it, and the next Pope they select will be able to make some broader changes. And it'll be a young guy, like JP was when he was elected.

Conjecture, I know...but as "Could Superman beat Thor?" debates go, it's a good one.

You remember how, a couple of months ago, there was that big flap over the editorial cartoon of the prophet Mohammad, and all of the Islamic nations got really pissed off about it? Remember how the essentially Christian West's reaction to it was more or less "Get over it, it was just a cartoon"?

Ah, irony. How I wish there was a well-recognized Islamic spokesman that could go up to one of those Billy Graham types and say "Get over it, it was just a movie!"

There's a fairly significant difference between marchers holding signs and riots that leave hundreds dead or homeless. Don't you think?

And actually, THE DA VINCI CODE is causing even more protests overseas--wouldn't be surprised to see some of the same muslim countries ban it entirely.

"After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right?"

Well, not necessarily. But I think that you do make a fair point here.

So tell me, given your concern about what you consider to be the anti-Semitic themes in "The Passion of the Christ" and your statement that people who feel that their religion is "ill-used" in the cinema should support each other, how are you choosing to support those who believe that "The DaVinci Code" is an attack on their faith? What did you do to support those who protested "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Both movies have a lot of people who sincerely feel that they are amazingly insensitive to Christianity. As someone who was offended by "The Passion", I know you must have some compassion for those who feel offended by these films.

I may not be in complete agreement with you here, but I'm interested in hearing how you personally are living up to your standard.

Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide. It's appreciated.

One thing that hasn't come up from anyone who's seen the movie.

Is it any good?

I'm not talking about theocratic, historic or any other kind of accuracy here. Is it a good way to spend a couple hours strapped to a bucket of popcorn with a bag of M & M's next to you? One review I saw on one of the channels said it was incredibly dry with nothing much happening, but I thought that was kind of like wanting to see a Mike Hammer movie and going to see Holmes and Watson instead. (Personally, as much of a classic detective movie fan as I am, I'd STILL rather see a good Holmes flick than some of the garbage mysteries that come out lately. Topic for another time) Seems like the media has jumped on the 14-year old boy/girl bandwagon. If the movie attempts any depth, doesn't have HUGE effects and/or stars, they trash it. Heaven forBID the public be forced to THINK in a movie.

Conjecture, I know...but as "Could Superman beat Thor?" debates go, it's a good one.

And the answer is no... Thor has a magic hammer which Supes is allergic to. So no.
Which is a more important debate anyway.

-T

Rat,

I hadn't read the book before I saw the movie on Saturday, so I didn't really have any preconceived notion of what to expect in terms of the excitement level of the story.

2 1/2 hours later, I was mildly disappointed. The most interesting parts of the movie were the puzzles (which were probably more intriguing in the book) and Ian McKellen (who will probably be more entertaining in X-3). The character of Langdon is about as deep as a puddle in the Mojave, and the only empathy the viewer lends towards him comes courtesy of Tom Hanks being Tom Hanks.

As far as the actual mystery is concerned, everything dovetails too neatly by the end of the film (again, I can't speak for the book since I haven't read the book). The plot twists that exist aren't too terribly surprising and the story could have benefitted from some more convincing red herrings.

All in all, DaVinci isn't a -bad- movie (and would probably be worth a rental when you can watch it from the comfort of your own sofa), but as a summer blockbuster, it isn't really that blockbustery.

Personally, as much of a classic detective movie fan as I am, I'd STILL rather see a good Holmes flick than some of the garbage mysteries that come out lately. Topic for another time)

try "Tell Them Johnny Wadd Is Here"

I've also been picketing Da Vinci Code on religious grounds, for its less-than-stellar use of screen angel Audrey Tautou.

As far as the protest part, I don't know why people are getting so hepped up about it. That old saw has been around since Christ left. Why start getting worked up about it now just because it's been novelized into pop culture?

Haven't seen the movie yet but, given the reviews, I'll probably wait for DVD.

I did, however, read the book.

The book was entertaining enough and it read much like an early Grisham novel- in other words, like a movie. It was a bit dragging in parts from what I can remember but not a novel to fling against the wall in disgust because it bored you so. Still I think it was worth reading.

I can see how the puzzle parts might not translate as well into movie format. But hopefully it will make the scenery better than Brown conveyed in his novel.

Oh and I heard aside from Magneto/Gandulf Mckellan, Bently gave a good turn as well. Bizzarely sexy from what a friend said. (Apparently Mckllan thought so too!)

You know, I have never understood the thinking behind the whole "Jews are responsible for killing Christ" thing in any context (and I'm not speaking of Gibson's movie, because I haven't seen it, but in general).

If you are a Christian, don't you have to believe that Jesus's death was ordained by God? It had to happen, didn't it? If Jesus had died peacefully in his bed at the age of 95... it wouldn't quite be the same sacrifice, would it? So if you believe that, then how can you lay responsibility on any individual or group of mortals for something that God ordained?

It also doesn't make sense in terms of blaming an entire ethnic/religious group of people for what at most a few hundred who were alive and present at the time in the "crowd" (though it could be merely the "chief priests") were responsible for down through the centuries. Christianity doesn't seem to support this "genetic guilt" in any other context. Rome unquestionably executed Peter and Paul, and I don't hear charges of their deaths ringing down through the centuries against descendants of Rome.

I understand the historical development of anti-semitism and how it's been used throughout the centuries for political and religious propaganda... but still. The "crime" underlying it all is Jesus's death, and blaming all Jews ever for that doesn't make any sense, not logically, historically or in terms of theology.

Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like.

I've been reading Exodus by Leon Uris. I find it an interesting novel laying out the history of anti-semitism and the Jewish race making their way back home to Palestine. Really enjoying it, though the nazi-germany parts sicken me all over again.

This is a Web site from someone I know who has converted to Catholicism, and has, shall we say strong opinions on DaVinci as do many of her fellow posters. You have to search for May 17-18 I believe:
http://www.dawneden.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

"Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like."

Feel that it is indeed no one's fault, not even the Romans, for the death of Christ but a persons'own sinful nature, that is.

"Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like."

You are referring to the idea that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus? And you know this..... how? You spend a lot of time with "modern Christians," do you? You've surveyed a significant sampling of the modern Christian church and you've concluded statistically that this is true? Please post your research.

I would be willing to bet that on any given day, my contact with "modern Christians" of the most conservative bent is much more indepth than yours is. I have never heard or seen any demonstration of anything but todal respect for God's chosen people, the Jews. So unless someone's especially annointed you to speak for millions of people or you have some research to back up this incredibly outrageous claim, I would please respectfully ask you to limit your comments to things that you know about - like the contents of the movies being discussed. Alternatively, you could speak in specifics rather than generalities. You might come off as a bit less offensive that way.

Thanks.

Zeek,

Thank you for clarifying your statement. It's appreciated. And I apologize if my words, which I thought were justified, caused you any concern or offense.

To all - I withdraw my previous statement. It was based on a misunderstanding. I apologize to all.

Thank you.

In comparing Christian reactions to "The Da Vinci Code" with Islamic reaction to editorial cartoons...

Maybe if Christians were turning over burning cars in the streets outside the theaters, you might be able to pull an analogy. But for a truly fair comparison, we need to have a world-wide theatrical release of "The Satanic Verses", with just as much hype as has been given "The Da Vinci Code".

uhh.. Tim? Yikes.

Sorry I wasn't more clear on my previous post. I was replying to Lynn's first questions on my initial response and later realized it might have come off the opposite of what I was intending to say!

Wasn't offended anyway, just totally shocked.

Have to say I found The Da Vinci Code one of the most offensive books I've read. Not because of any pseudo-history nonsense, but because it really was a piece of appalling writing. I made sure I gave away my book to a friend (who gave up after the first ten pages), just so that she didn't waste her money on it as well.

I've been trying to wash the taste out of my brain for months now and still haven't succeeded. And the more I see the Da Vinci Code, the Magdalene Cypher, the Judas Diaries, the 'I was the guy who delivered Jesus' Baby' Codex and so on saturating the shelves in all the local bookstores under the 'If you liked The Da Vinci Code...' banner, I don't feel I can ever be free.

Now if only the protestors would shut up about it, a few less people might not be tempted to see what all the fuss is about and have their lives scarred like mine.

See now I didn't think the book was that horrible. Not worth the hype and not a novel I'd rave over or read again, but readable.

::shrug::

I haven't seen the Passion, though I've really meant to. I don't know why people call it anti-Semitic, but then again I haven't seen it. I am a Christain, and I've never heard a Christian blame "the Jews" for the death of Christ. Jesus was Jewish. Christianity effectivey begins with his death. Sure, the people in the crowd who called for Jesus's death were, for the most part, Jews, but no part of Christianity I'm aware of blames the Jewish people as the cause of his death. The cause of his death was the sin in ALL mankind, no matter race, religion, sex, sexuality, or anything else. Christ died because people are sinful, all people. I certainly can't imagine any real Christian blaming the Jews for the death of Christ.

As far as the Muslim firestorm over the depiction of Muhammad (sp?), I certainly don't support their actions, but I also don't support the actions of those who were drawing cartoons of Mohammad (sp?). I was unaware at the time that it considered such a horrible thing to Muslims to draw Muhammed (sp?), but with that knowledge, in deference to people who follow Islam, I personally would abstain from making depictions of him, but that's just me trying to respect the religious choice of others. Which I believe is one of the principles America was founded on.

Iain, I had pretty much the same reaction when trying to read the book, though I got further than you did before giving up. And I usually have a pretty high tolerance for trash. It may be that I don't have the time to read as many novels as I'd like and my patience has become limited. Still, there must be SOME reason why this book, among so many other far more worthy ones, became such a hit.

Josh, I've seen THE PASSION 3 times now and the accusation of anti-semitism rings hollow with me but there is no denying that this has been a very common thread in the minds of far too many Christians until fairly recently. As things stand now it's some of the most conservative Christian groups that Israel counts among its most loyal allies but then again it wouldn't be hard to look good when compared to the naziesque blood libles that are broadcast daily from Israel's neighbors.

I'd have more or even some sympathy for the feelings of Muslims regarding the cartoons if it weren't for the fact that disparaging (to say the least) cartoons of Chirstians and Jews are a common feature in Islamic countries, with nary a fuss raised.

It's also debateable whether the taboo on depeictions of Mohammad is a recent development or not. Regardless, anyone who threatens the lives of cartoonists and experesses their displeasure by rioting, killing and burning is worth the exact and precise consideration that should be given any garden variety thug.

Before I address Andy Ihnatko directly, I want to confess that my earlier screeds against religion were in part a reaction to the excesses of religious people whom I have encountered in my life. And it's probably not fair to bring that emotion to the debate. If I don't like religionists belittling me and treating me like I'm foolish for not believing as they do, then it is hypocritcal of me to behave towards them in the same way.

If you are religious, then I most likely disagree with you passionately about a number of things. But that doesn't mean I think you're stupid.

Moreover, y'know that old saw about "I don't like what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?" Well, to me, the freedom to belong to a religious group and worship as one sees fit is one of the few things in this world worth dying for, should it come to that.

Now, my response to Andy...

Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 24, 2006 11:29 AM

I also think that the Church trying to make Catholic doctrine into civil policy is incorrect.

No, it's not. The official stance of the Church is that members of the U.S. Congress, for example, have an obligation to vote in accordance with Catholic teachings when it comes to issues of "life or family." In 2004, Pope John Paul II said, "I consider it opportune to recall that the legislator, and the Catholic legislator in particular, cannot contribute to the formulation or approval of laws contrary to 'the primary and essential norms that regulate moral life', the expressions of the highest values of the human person and proceeding in the last analysis from God, the Supreme Legislator."

During the last U.S. Presidential election, many American Catholic officials made it equally clear that to remain a Catholic in good standing, legislators must vote in accordance with Catholic teachings on issues like abortion and gay marriage. So yes, the Catholic Church is indeed trying to have its teachings enshrined in civil law. They're not the only culprits, mind you, but since we're talking about the Catholic Church I thought I'd, y'know, talk about the Catholic Church and not the Branch Davidians.

How can that be interpreted as an attack? They're not suppressing other opinions...they're just refusing to support them as articles of Catholic faith. They're saying that if you want to play baseball, don't show up with a hockey stick. They're not trying to forcibly take away your stick and put a bat in your hand.

No, that's not quite what they're saying. What they're saying is that it's wonderful to be Catholic, and you'll be a lot happier if you're Catholic, and oh, by the way, to be a Catholic you have to accept everything the Magisterium asserts as the truth.

The Catholic Church has been moving over the last decade-or-so to stifle dissent within its ranks. Just because such dissent is still occurring doesn't mean they're not trying to squelch it, any more than failed bank robbery attempts indicate a lack of desire on the part of the bank robber to commit robbery.

The problem is that the Church has been moving to include more and more things under the umbrella of "absolute truth" that they are diluting the term. Want an example? How about when Pope John Paul II declared infallible his declaration that women could not be priests?

To me, there is only One Truth in this world: that The Truth, if such a thing exists, could bite us in the ass and we might not recongize it, so it's best for us not to get too high-and-mighty.

Also, devout Catholics in particular wouldn't believe that their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation. Jesus died and redeemed our sins (according to the playbook)...meaning, we're already Saved, even the non-Catholics.

Not quite. Like any Christians, Catholics believe you must embrace Christ as your personal savior.

Mmm...Galileo was put on trial 400 years ago, and the first Crusade was 900 years ago. Plus, in 1100, the Papacy was a political entity, and the situation with Galileo was complicated. Copernicus wasn't jailed when he put forth a heliocentric theory 100 years earlier...in fact, cardinals had been encouraging him to run with the idea.

Sigh... I was trying to show that problems within the Catholic Church are nothing new. Yes, the first two things I mentioned happened a long, long time ago, but just because something happened centuries ago doesn't mean it's not part of a pattern. I suppose I could have gone into all of the Church's sins, except that the Church has been around a long, long time and I don't think PAD wants me to use his blog to write a lengthy history of the church. This damn post is already too long!

I'm sorry, Andy, but creating straw men is a rhetorical tactic that irritates me. No, I didn't mention a lot of the Church's more recent sins. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Space is limited. Read some history books if you don't believe my assertion that the Church has faltered many times throughout its history, and that such faltering is not limited to centuries-old misdeeds.

The only thing that mitigates their reaction (albeit in a trivial sense) is the fact that for most of the 20th century, most of society had the same absurd attitude towards the problem.

But the Church holds itself up as an institution that can elevate individuals and society to live more harmoniously with God. So, no, they don't get to hide behind what the rest of society was doing at the time.

So Benedict XVI sits for ten or fifteen years, influenced by JP II's thinking but not strictly following it, and the next Pope they select will be able to make some broader changes. And it'll be a young guy, like JP was when he was elected.

Yes. John Paul II was a young guy when he was elected, and turned out to be a very conservative Pope who attempted to steer the Church back towards traditionalism. So if the Pope that succeeds Benedict is a relatively young one, that's no guarantee that he'll be more liberal.

Conjecture, I know...but as "Could Superman beat Thor?" debates go, it's a good one.

Oops, forgot to edit out the last line of my prior post. That last statement about Superman vs. Thor was Andy's, not mine!

Oops, forgot one more thing: thanks, Andy Ihnatko, for an interesting an intellectually stimulating debate. We differ greatly on a lot of issues, but I'm very much enjoying our exchanges.

How about when Pope John Paul II declared infallible his declaration that women could not be priests?

Bill, is this, strictly speaking, accurate? The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which decreed that the Church lacked the authority to ordain women, was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium, so it cannot be considered infallible in and of itself. Infallibility is poorly understood, not least of all by myself.

Hey, is anyone else wierded out by those amp'd mobile ads where someone starts telling people to fight each other or play the piano with their face and they all go and do it? It's like a glimpse into some scary mutant world where evil jean grey's are terrorizing the average human for their own amusement.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 24, 2006 07:47 PM

Bill, is this, strictly speaking, accurate? The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which decreed that the Church lacked the authority to ordain women, was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium, so it cannot be considered infallible in and of itself. Infallibility is poorly understood, not least of all by myself.

Well, I thought it was accurate, else I'd not have said it. I remember reading that the Pope had declared his writings on that issue to be infallible. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Shit. Are you gonna hound me and make me check my every fact for accuracy? I mean, how crappy is that? This is the Internet age! I shouldn't have to know things to be able to talk about them!

(Note to literalists: above paragraph was treated with patent-pending "sarcasmatron," a unique polymer chain that both drenches words in irony and also prevents underbody rust.)

Sigh. I suppose now I'll have to look this up. One more thing to add to my "to do" list...

Curse you, Bill Mulligan. Curse you.

Oh, one other thing -- isn't "Sacerdotalis" Latin for testicles or something? Shame on you for debasing this topic, Bill Mulligan.

(The above paragraph was treated with "Rediculos," a unique blend of carbonite and vibranium alloys that makes seriousness bead up and slip right off of your words.)

Well wiki is no damn help at all--- "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement, and so is not considered infallible in itself. There is, however, a case for its contents to be infallible under the ordinary magisterium, as this doctrine has been held consistently by the Church."

Huh?

Also-- "The teachings of the ordinary magisterium are non-infallible. Such teachings are generally correct, as they are based on infallible Sacred Tradition, infallible Sacred Scripture, and the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. But some errors can be found within the ordinary teachings of the magisterium, and therefore, such teachings are reformable and revocable."

So...huh?

Actually, that makes a bit of sense to me. Think of it this way: the ordinary magisterium itself is not inherently infallible. But some teachings of the ordinary magisterium are based on other sources that are considered infallible.

Here's another way to think abou it. Let's say you, Mr. Mulligan the Science Teacher, tell Student A to tell Student B he's in trouble. Is Student B in trouble because Student A said so? No. Student B is in trouble because you said so. Student A doesn't have the authority to decide who is or is not in trouble. But Student A is nevertheless correct because he's repeating what you said.

It's scary that that makes sense to me. Especially because I passionately reject the idea that any teachings written by Man are infallible, even if said teachings are said to be inspired by God.

If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There's always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.

If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There's always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.

If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There's always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.

Bill Myers: Besides, I'm a little skeptical about the veracity of anything I see on Fox News.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but is there any reason they’d have a motive for a slant on that particular story? How would saying that Hayes didn’t really quite SP for the ostensible reason tie into their right-wing bias? I mean, if they reported that it was going to rain, or that the sky was blue, would you discount that automatically, even without explaining how there is a right-wing motive there? :-)

Even if someone has been proven to have a bias, not everything single thing they say is the opposite of the truth.

What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.

Like this one: http://www.scientomogy.com/southpark_scientology_chef.php.

Or this one (which starts off with a reference to FOX’s story, but corroborates it via Tennessee’s Action 5 News): http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2006/03/salon-reports-isaac-hayes-may-not-have.html.

Or this one: http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/south-park/isaac-hayes-may-have-quit-south-park-by-his-own-notfree-will-161708.php.

Bill Myers: I've seen statements from Isaac Hayes that make it explicitly clear that he quit South Park because of their "religious intolerance." Moreover, his threshold for their "religious intolerance" wasn't exceeded until the Scientology episode.
Luigi Novi: Statements which may have not been made by him, but his Scientologist handlers, which is what you’d expect them to say, given when his “threshold” was breached. It’s possible that Hayes is a hypocrite. It’s possible that others are speaking for him. (Admittedly, perhaps referring to this explanation as the “real story” was premature.)

I wonder what would have happened if I'd walked up to them and asked them if they were out protesting with great ire over the way that Jews were portrayed in "Passion of the Christ."

I don't think people have enough room in their heads for more than one point of view. If they even attempted to see the world from another person's perspective, their heads would implode.

Also, I think the #1 biggest reason that Christians didn't protest on Jews' behalf at anti-Semitism in the Passion is because most Christians wouldn't recognize anti-Semitism unless it involved an image of a swastika or some direct reference to the Holocaust.

So while Jews are protesting the film, many Christians are thinking to themselves, "What are you talking about? I didn't see any swasticas." It's not that I think Christians are unfamiliar with persecution--and I certainly don't think they are stupid, (although it might appear that way with the example I used, which was meant to be an exaggeration). I think they are unfamiliar with the rhetoric that has been used to alienate Jews, and how threatened Jews feel when encountered with the possibility of alienation. Why do the Christians not see this? Because they are not Jewish.

Different identities implies different forms of identification. Christians see the world through Christian eyes, Jews see the world through Jewish eyes. When Christians see that Jews are having problems, they first attempt to identify with Jews as Christians. And then, failing that and if they care enough, they might make the effort to see through Jewish eyes. And vice versa, of course.

I think one of the big problems in society is that people refuse to see the world from any point of view other than their own. The way we identify (or don't identify) with one another shapes the world we live in.

Christianity (like other religions) exists in certain historical circumstances. During most of its existance christianity existed in a society that was not pluralistic, was not open minded to different ideas, was racist (and antisemitic), accepted the idea of collective guilt (of the Jews), resented the Jews for rejecting Jesus, supressed points of view inside christianity that were different from an official position, accepted social institutions we today find wrong such as tyranny, torture, inequality, and slavery, and of course believed that whoever does not accept the truth went to hell.

Today, in western society at least, these ideas were rejected (more or less), and Christianity adapted to these changes. Today the catholic establishment is more interested in cooperating with other denominations and religions against secularism that supressing them, and antisemitism is no longer promoted in Church teachings. However, this is a recent development, and is not without difficulty. This is why the idea of female priests is still not accepted (in Catholism), and evolution is still rejected, while Galileo, protestants and Jews are accepted.

I think that if you showed the Passion of the Christ to a medieval European audience, or even a 19th century audience (certainly in Eastern Europe), they would have taken it for granted that it contains a negative image of Jews. Today this is not the case, at least in the US (although some associations die hard, like an Italian cartoon showing the Israeli armi going into Bethlehem with Jesus asking: are they going to kill me again?). The Jews who protested about this movie (was there actual protest?) should have put more faith that (most of) American society will not see an antisemitic message in this movie, or at least should have kept their ammunition to situations where antisemitism is obvious.

Still, there are several aspects of the Passion that require notice. (1) It was a religious event both for its makers and viewers. It was created to stir religious feelings. (2) It was made by a man belonging to a sect that rejects some of the adaptations Catholism had to make in recent years. (3) I don't know about Mel Gibson, but his father is an antisemite. It would be unfair towards Mel Gibson to assume hat heis also antisemitic, but it is relevant to the discussion.

About Da Vinci Code. If the Catholic critics of this movie are angry because it presents a wrong version of Christianity, than they are wrong, both because they no longer have a monopoly on Christianity and because it is only a work of fiction.
If they are angry because of the negative portrail of Catholism than they may have a better case (I don't remember how negative was the image of the Church in the book, haven't seen the movie). However it seems to be that Catholism is getting more criticism from other places, and this hardly seems a serious case.
If their concern is that the false information on the Church is used to promote a negative image of Catholicism (much like the [false] Protocols of the elders of Zion are used to promote a negative image of Jews), than they also may have a case. However, I think Jewish fears of the resurgence of antisemitism are probasbly more justified than fear of hatred of catholics. Antisemitism seems closer to the surface in today's society than hatred of catholics, although both have existed in not so distant history. But I could be wrong.

Concerning the guilt of Jews see Matthew 27:22-25
What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"

23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Posted by: Micha at May 25, 2006 07:52 AM

Micha, as usual, you've done a good job of elevating the discussion and educating us.

My girlfriend's parents are recent converts to Catholicism. They have enthusiastically embraced the Church because the hard-line conservatism of Pope John Paul II appealed to them. They are among a vocal segment of Catholicism that wants to return to tradition. They're not big fans of the ecumenical movement. And Catholic doctrine still does assert that non-Catholic Christians are heretics.

That said, you are correct that Catholics today cooperate with other Christian sects far more than ever before, having banded together in the fight against secularism. To me, this is minor progress at best. They are still opposed to diversity and freedom of thought. Their tactics have changed and become more civilized as society has come to reject barbaric practices of old, but their goals remain very much the same.

Regarding the anti-semitism, or lack thereof, in The Passion of the Christ, I think Peter's analogy holds up regardless of whether you think Mel Gibson's movie was anti-semitic. After all, Peter's rhetorical question was, "After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right?" (Emphasis mine.)

Many Jews felt that The Passion of the Christ was anti-semitic. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church responded by accusing some Jewish groups of trying to poison the relationship between the two religions. Now the Catholic Church feels that The DaVinci Code is ill-using their religion. Perhaps they have more of a claim than the Jews protesting The Passion of the Christ, and perhaps not. But the fact is that in both cases, the people involved cared because they felt ill-used.

Alan Dershowitz once said you're not truly a friend of the First Amendment unless you're willing to defend someone's right to defend an idea you find repugnant. He suggested that a Jew who truly loves freedom of speech would defend the right of neo-nazis to demonstrate in their town, for example. I suppose that, conversely, a Catholic who truly loves the First Amendment should support Hollywood's right to make movies like The DaVinci Code, however they may personally feel about it.

It's something worth thinking about. I'm betting each and every one of us has our own "sacred cows." When it's someone else's cow that's threatened, they're whiners; when it's our cow, it's injustice.

Peter, it just occurred to me that citing Alan Dershowitz's example of what he felt a Jew might do to demonstrate a commitment to freedom of speech might look like I'm singling out Jews. If that's how it came off, I'm sorry. I was simply using the example Dershowitz himself used in a newspaper column he wrote about 20 years ago. I used Catholics in my own example to balance things out, but I didn't know if that was clear.

Because, y'know, I'm aware that you're Jewish, and I'm aware that you've demonstrated your commitment to the First Amendment by your actions. I didn't want you to think I was telling you what you need to do to support free speech. You're an undisputed leader in that fight.

Thanks Bill

"Alan Dershowitz once said you're not truly a friend of the First Amendment unless you're willing to defend someone's right to defend an idea you find repugnant. He suggested that a Jew who truly loves freedom of speech would defend the right of neo-nazis to demonstrate in their town, for example."

True.

However if someone presents a view one disagrees with, at the same time that he must accept his or her right to voice that view, it is also his right, or even duty, to speak out against that view. So, if Catholics dislike the message of Da Vinci Code, they are within their right in speaking against it, but not if they try to supress it.

The question is: should we speak against it because it presents a negative image of Catholicism?

I think not. For three reasons:
1) In so far at it promotes a false version of Christian doctrine it is not my job to protect an orthodox doctrine of that religion (or any). In any case,the Church can set records straight on matters of doctrine.

2) In so far as it promotes a false history it is in the interest of historians to set the record straight. It is the risk of people learning history from Holywood. The American Historical Review has a section reviewing historical movies.

3) In so far as the movie portrays a negative image of Catholicism, Catholics, or Opus Dei, I don't think there is a major risk of anti-Catholic feelings being inflamed by the movie. Catholics are certainly capable of dealing with any fair or unfair criticism. In any case, I've seen worst as far as criticism of catholicism is concerned. Have you seen a movie called "Sister Mary Tells All"?

With the Passion the main concern was not that it insults Judaism or even Jews as much as it might arouse or encourage Antisemitic sentiments. To me it seems that this was likely to arouse antisemitism only where antisemitism already existed, so that most Americans were not at great risk relatively.

evolution is still rejected,

Micha, I would take exception to this--evolution is openly embraced by the Catholic church (to the point of really angering creationists) as well as the majority of mainstream Protestant branches.

I would also argue that Gibson;s father's idiotic views are irrelevant, just as the views of Dan Brown's father would be. (not that anyone is asking about Dan Brown's fathers views, or even Dan Brown's, as far as I can see).

I seriously doubt that either anti-semitism or anti-Catholicism will enjoy a great resurgence in this country, though it depends on the venue. There are still pockets of both among the ignorant. Among the so called intelligence you will raise nary an eyebrow with bigoted anti Catholic statements as long as they are wrapped up in the appropriate armor of political correctness. Attacking Jews is trickier, what with the urge not to look too much like a nazi; you need to emphasize that it isn't Jews you hate per se, just Israel (the country full of Jews).

Bill, it seems to me that the most consistent and best policy (since the two are not always the same) would be to disagree with BOTh Jews and Catholics who condemned either or both movies, especially sight unseen.

I imagine what also angers some of these protestors is the hypocrisy that allows any anti-catholic movie to be made but encourages the ban on doing the same to Islam. Personally, I think they are going after the wrong target, I don't want to see Christianity and Judaism fall into the same trap that too much of the Muslim world has.

What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.

I'm sorry?

Unless I'm mistaken, Luigi, and this comment was made by somebody else but I don't think that's the case, YOU are the one who posted the Fox story, so why should WE have to corroborate it?

And I went to the Action News 5 website for your "corroboration". What a joke. They say in their article that they confirm that Hayes had a stroke, and that they'll "keep you posted as new information becomes availible."

Yet, there is not a single article on their site following up on this. I think that means that there's no new information because it was a bunk story.

So, I'm curious, should I believe Fox News, or a comment attributed to Hayes's spokeswoman?

Should I believe Fox News, or wonder about the fact that NOBODY ELSE picked up on this? And don't give me this "it just flew under the radar" garbage because celebrities are like magnets in this country, and nothing happens to any of 'em without somebody hearing about it and everybody reporting it.

Hayes just had a kid in the last couple of weeks, and that was reported in an AP article on the Action News 5 site. Amusingly enough, the article says he quite South Park because of Scientology. Nothing about his supposed stroke.

C'mon, Luigi, you're smarter than this.

Ordinarily Mel Gibson's father's views would be irrelevant but:
1) The person in question is a leading member of a small conservative Christian sect.
2) He does not only have private antisemtic views, he promotes them vocally. And I think he does it as a leader in said sect.
3) Mel Gibson is a member of the same sect.
4) In making the movie Mel Gibson was acting as a religious man executing a religious duty, so his religious beliefs, and those of the sect he belongs to are relevant.
5) The source Gibson used for the movie is said to be antisemitic.

However, I am not saying that he is an antisemite. I don't know. But I am not certain he's not either. I think this is a relevant question with regard to this movie. It is not relevant with regard to Braveheart.

It would have been nice if Mel said something like: I love my father but I disagree with some of his opinions.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 25, 2006 09:39 AM
Bill, it seems to me that the most consistent and best policy (since the two are not always the same) would be to disagree with BOTh Jews and Catholics who condemned either or both movies, especially sight unseen.

Oh, agreed: no one should be condemning any work of art they haven't seen. If you haven't seen it, how can you claim to understand it?

I think Micha has a great point, though: you should support the right of someone to express, free of government interference, a viewpoint you find repugnant. If, however, your conscience tells you said viewpoint is repugnant, well, then, you probably should argue against that viewpoint in favor of your own.

It's a tricky tightrope to walk when you feel passionately about a philosophical or moral issue. Ideally, you should try to persuade others to adopt your point of view, rather than attempt to bully them into it. On the other hand, if you feel that abortion is murder, how can you in all good conscience walk by an abortion clinic and not want to protest?

I think the trick is to recognize that certain moral issues can be agreed upon by all (for example, walking up to someone at random and shooting them is, I think, universally accepted as a no-no by all thinking people), and are therefore fair game for legislation. Abortion, gay marriage, and the resurgence of 70s fashions are less clear-cut, and therefore perhaps better left to individuals.

By the way, I hope you don't think I'm one of those anti-Catholic bigots. I disagree with Catholicism -- and, for that matter, all of Christianity -- as passionately as I disagree with just about all religions. But I'm aware that I am, to quote the lyrics to "Freewill," just a "cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete." Said imperfection and incompleteness makes it impossible for me to know in any objective way whether I'm truly right. Or for that matter whether my emotions are clouding my intellect. That's why I believe that everyone has to be given room to practice and express their beliefs in an appropriate way.

And by appropriate, I mean non-violent and respectful of other people's rights. I mean, if your religion requires you to play the tamborine while singing "Copacabana" in my front yard at 2 a.m., you're out of luck.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at May 24, 2006 11:42 PM

Luigi Novi: Yeah, but is there any reason they’d have a motive for a slant on that particular story? How would saying that Hayes didn’t really quite SP for the ostensible reason tie into their right-wing bias? I mean, if they reported that it was going to rain, or that the sky was blue, would you discount that automatically, even without explaining how there is a right-wing motive there? :-)

Luigi, note that I didn't say that Fox's right-wing bias is what leads me to doubt the veracity of their report about the "real story" behind Isaac Hayes quitting South Park. You assumed that was the case -- wrongly, in this instance.

I believe Fox News has a right-wing bias, mind you, but I believe that is but one of the problems with their reporting. I also believe they are more prone to sensationalism then many other news operations, and, as the travesty they called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? shows, they are not exactly committed to fact-checking.

Mind you, I'm aware that other more liberal news outlets have similar problems. But Fox is, in my opinion, one of the worst. And it's not because they're right-wing. It's because they're shitty reporters.

Even if someone has been proven to have a bias, not everything single thing they say is the opposite of the truth.

No, but I never said that was the case. I simply said I was skeptical. There's a difference.

What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.

Why? I've seen the story from various media outlets, and Fox is the only one that reported that Hayes quit South Park for reasons other than anger over their treatment of Scientology. Given Fox's track record, I feel justified in remaining skeptical.

How about this -- why doesn't Fox do more to corroborate their story? That's a reporter's job. I oughtta know -- I used to be a reporter.

Josh--While I REALLY have a lot of respect for your line of thinking (religious tolerance, being one of the principles the country was founded on) I have to point out that most of the controversy didn't take PLACE in this country. I'm not sure if it's an American thing or what, but other countries have other values. We can't expect other countries to act like us or follow our lead, (nor would I want them to in some cases) but occasionally we could teach them a thing or two.

As far as Christians not recognizing Anti-Semitism unless they see certain symbols or things, unfortunately that's the nature of the beast. Mile in their shoes, and everything. Groups can try to be sensitive to each other, but how much can they ever REALLY understand?

And as for the Veracity of Fox News...any "news" channel that spends that much time and energy covering their two main stories(those being, of course, Natalie Holloway and American Idol) should not be taken seriously. As I said in school (and now here so we all can enjoy it) the news we see isn't the news, it's what the people controlling it think we'll think is news. Facts? Ahh, who needs 'em?

I'm not gonna get into a whole Fox vs CBS, CNN etc, but by the standards you've expressed here, none of them pass muster.

Besides, wasn't Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? played on the Fox TV network, not Fox News--two totally different entities? (it would be like giving Fox News CREDIT for The Simpsons!).

Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 25, 2006 11:11 AM

I'm not gonna get into a whole Fox vs CBS, CNN etc, but by the standards you've expressed here, none of them pass muster.

You'll get no argument from me.

Besides, wasn't Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? played on the Fox TV network, not Fox News--two totally different entities? (it would be like giving Fox News CREDIT for The Simpsons!).

Ah, shit, I looked it up and I think you're right. See, this is why I'm no longer a reporter. I can't keep anything straight.

Mulligan, I must say that I don't appreciate the way you keep exposing my lack of command of the facts and exposing me for the idiot windbag we all know that I am. :)

But you're a loveable idiot windbag which puts you way ahead of most of us.

Heh! I did a little research and quickly found an example where Fox News was indeed culpable for reporting pseudoscience as fact:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm

So who's the idiot windbag now, Mulligan?

Huh? It's still me?

Crap.

Nah. That was the Fox news website. But you're still loveable.

Bill:

I don't think I was making a straw man argument when I talked about the broader parameters of the Crusades and the trial of Galileo. As people of the 21st century, we're best capable of understanding and speaking of the problems and the failings of the Church of the 21st century...of which (Good Lord) there are plenty...as opposed to things that happened centuries ago.

When we say "Is the Church's opposition to birth control a result of simple resistance to dissent and change?" we all know what sort of a world the 21st century is, I mean. We can't evaluate the decisions of 1000 AD with the same level of understanding. But when we talk about hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths, partly due to the Church's opposition to condoms, we can have a fuller discussion.

And sure, I know Catholic history fairly well, and I'm confident that if you don't recall the bits where I've acknowledged the Church's failings and sins, it's only because this is a long thread and it's easy to overlook or forget about certain elements.

We're getting at that frustrating point in any ongoing online debate where (a) it's becoming a cracking-good discussion between smart people who want to explore a topic, but (b) we've dug into areas that are complex enough that following a thought through all the way requires time and research. And a three-day weekend's coming up. :)

I'll just return to my basic point, in case I don't have time to return to this thread: I think the Church and its members get an unfair rap for not being free-thinkers.

I think it's easy to defend the statement that the Church doesn't discourage debate, even on matters of doctrine. Officials only truly dig in their heels when "Let's talk about this" morphs into "Let's change Doctrine to reflect my/our opinion." Even when that's articulated as inoffensively as the statement "I'm a Catholic and I support the death penalty." The subtle distinction is that the Church's reaction is against the first half of the statement and not the second.

I mean, if the Church demanded that all of its members think the same way about every topic, there wouldn't be any controversy regarding the selection of a new Pope. Even in the College of Cardinals, there are wide differences of opinion regarding the correct future direction of the Church.

Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 25, 2006 04:17 PM

Bill:

I don't think I was making a straw man argument when I talked about the broader parameters of the Crusades and the trial of Galileo. As people of the 21st century, we're best capable of understanding and speaking of the problems and the failings of the Church of the 21st century...of which (Good Lord) there are plenty...as opposed to things that happened centuries ago.

I understand, and acknowledge that you have a valid point. I was simply trying to point out, however, that the Church's current woes are part of a historical pattern. I don't think our perspectives are mutually exclusive.

I became irritable because I perceived, perhaps wrongly, that you were unfairly nitpicking. I apologize.

We can't evaluate the decisions of 1000 AD with the same level of understanding.

No, but as I said, we can certainly point to those things to help put the current situation into a historical context.

But when we talk about hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths, partly due to the Church's opposition to condoms, we can have a fuller discussion.

Agreed. But, as you said, space and time are limited commodities, so I chose one modern problem as an example.

And sure, I know Catholic history fairly well, and I'm confident that if you don't recall the bits where I've acknowledged the Church's failings and sins, it's only because this is a long thread and it's easy to overlook or forget about certain elements.

Or I was just getting pissy. I do that sometimes. I suspect you know the Church's history better than I do. Most of my feelings about the Church stem from my decision at the age of 16 to break with the Church, and my parent's insistence on trying to cram the Church down my throat. I was only 16, but had given the issue a lot of thought and reflection, and resented the way so many people around me acted as though I had to be stupid because I, perish the thought, disagreed with them.

At 16 I knew practically nothing, and thus I thought I knew everything. Ironically, though, 19 years and some change later, I still feel comfortable with my decision to break with the Church and more confident than ever that I was right to turn my back on religion in favor of a different path.

As I said, I was prob