Is the Passion Dangerous?

[Az]

I know. Another Passion thread. But this may be an important issue.

From all reports the Passion is an uber violent film. It depicts Jesus as the ultimate victim. All the claimed intent on the part of Mel and his backers do not change the nature of what is about to be portrayed.

Zealots seek to place the world into two camps. Those who are with them and everyone else under the sway of evil powers. This movie is going to give them some very real feelings of anger towards anyone not supporting their belief system. Its not just antisemetic rhetoric that this film represents. It is the stoking of anger and hostility to any that would deny their truth.

There is a war going on in the world right now. It is allinged along the boundaries of Absolute Dogmatic Authority and Relativistic Humanist Morality. This battle has been going on for 500 years. And for the most part our diverse societies need for Humanism has won out. The Religious Right has been changing that equation. It fears for its very life because advances in knowledge and societal advances have pressed it into a corner. It is a beast cornered and The Passion may well be the first snarl of it's turn to madness and striking back against the society it feels oppressed by.

[slappypan]

1. dunno

But I'm getting nervous and thinking of making a quick trip to Chuck's Gun Shop just in case.

[supernova]

2. Good question, Az

My answer is I don't know w/o seeing it.

It some ways it might be a typical Mel Gibson film. Most of his movies are filled with might makes right violence. Why would we expect anything different from his version of the Gospels?

It might just be an old-fashioned Passion Play. Not everybody who wants to can go to Oberammergau. But even there, they have worked over the last 2-3 cycles to take out the anti-semitism. Did Gibson get the memo? Don't know.

Best I can say right now, is that I am uneasy.

[Blue_Chill]

3. If they get Jesus right it should have the opposite effect

GOPC (c= christians) ignore Jesus and perhaps seeing that they aren't behaving as he instructed will make them less annoying. I know it's a long shot but hey can't blame a guy fro dreamin.

[regnaD kciN]

67. Not with the film's time-frame...

If this were an honestly-done "life of Jesus" covering his entire ministry, you might well be right. But this is only "The Passion" -- i.e. the last twelve hours of Jesus's earthly life. There won't be any preaching -- merely suffering.

And, as I've pointed out earlier, this is a key to understanding the difference between mainstream Christianity and the sort of popular, neo-Anselmian fundamentalism (found in both Catholicism and Protestantism) whose exponents are so strongly backing both this film and political conservatism. The whole point of Jesus, according to that view, is simply as "victim" whose sufferings will assuage the wrath of God the Father. In that view, Jesus's ministry, teachings, etc., are relatively unimportant. What counts is his serving as a "blood sacrifice" so that sins could be forgiven -- you might consider him according to this theology as the ultimate "get out of Hell free" card.

Is it any surprise that proponents of this fundamentalism are thus relatively unconcerned about following Jesus's teachings? Indeed, thanks to his "blood sacrifice," their sins are going to be forgiven. Thus, most of their ethical concerns mainly involve the behavior of everone else -- the "unsaved," if you will -- and making sure Those Evil Awful People Over There aren't allowed to do anything that might get God mad at everyone again...

:crazy:

[seabeyond]

4. living in the religious belt

this is how i am seeing the fundamentalists using this movie. they are buying out theater seats to take little children to see. no less cult and brainwashing like the islamic fundamentalist, children swaying in prayer for 8 hours i hate

[Dob Bole]

55. I plan to go see the movie...

Yes, Mel Gibson's beliefs are weird to me. But it still looks like it will be a good movie. And it is technically a foreign film, since it is not in English.

I am going to wait a couple of weeks though, until the fundies are out of the theaters. Then we will see if I become magically anti-semitic after seeing it.

[yellowcanine]

5. I don't know but Mel Gibson is if you can believe what he said

about Frank Rich, who criticized Gibson's father as a holocaust revisionist. Gibson supposedly said "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick." I don't have a link, this was a short blurb in the Style section of the Wash Post last week.

Ok -here is a link to this story in the Telegraph (sorry about the right-wing source)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/09/wmel09.xml

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. There has been a historic...

use of "passion plays" (which this movie is) to whip up religious fervor and violence.

That is one of the great fears about this film.

Let's face it - this film is meant by the creator as red meat for the fundies. He has said as much in interviews.

My fear about this film is that it will only deepen the crazy right-wing fundies views of themselves as "victims", and pour fuel on the religious insanity they are known for.

[regnaD kciN]

68. Yes and no...

The primary goal of passion plays is to stir devotion to Jesus through the emotional experience of seeing what he suffered. The primary result should be to recognize how one's own sins contributed to his sufferings and death, and to both thereby repent of those sins and recognize God's love in giving his own life instead of taking your life and the lives of all us other sinners.

That's the ideal. Unfortunately, in the flawed world we live in, it is not uncommon for people to block out such uncomfortable thoughts about their own behavior by imposing an "us versus them" worldview on the whole procedure, whereby it is not their own sins, but "the Jews," that are to blame, allowing they themselves the false sense of security of believing that they are on "the side of the angels" (and the apostles, etc.), all of whom are innocent witnesses to the evil of The Jews.

How much of each sentiment this film will produce remains to be seen. But I think it would be over-optimistic to assume that viewers today would be so "enlightened" that they would only take the first viewpoint, without any of the second seeping in.

[soleft]

7. I'm concerned about Bush see the flick

Jesus is already his compensatory fantasy father figure. If this enflames his passion for Christ his policy decisions may take on a an even greater fantatical edge.

Which may actually be a good thing for us because it will rally people to oust his butt from office.

[jmowreader]

108. Bush can't get much more fanatical

..

[donsu]

8. all last wk. CNN had religious programs on every time I looked at

the muted TV. so much so that I've been thinking about it ever since.

I think Mel's movie is the opening shot of the bloody hands bushgang's bid to brainwash/evangalize americans to accept their dogma.

I'm wondering how religious the owners/managers of CNN are? they seem to have an agenda.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

9. i dunno but i'm ordering a Magic Jesus Nail

they're blessed with the powers of St Mel himself

Yes, "The Tackiness of the Christ" coming Wednesday to a theatre near you!

'JESUS' NAIL SALE

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
February 19, 2004 -- Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."
Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.

Hundreds of stores across the country will be selling licensed items tied to the movie, a graphically violent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/18338.htm

[arendt]

16. Get your splinter of the true cross, right here. What medieval codswalllop

We are going straight back to the Dark Ages.
Do not pass the Rennaisance, go straight back.

What is the difference between idolatry and this
crapola?

Why aren't people of other religious traditions
appalled at the naked hucksterism of this?

Nauseating.

arendt

[supernova]

19. The nails. They do smack of relics

and midaeval pilgrimages. But at least back then you had to take a trip and visit the place. Most of the time you learned something along the way. If you bought one, it represented a kind of struggle that you had survived.

If these things show up at Wallyworld I'm going to be ill. :puke:

[smirkymonkey]

37. What's Next??

The Jesus World Amusement Park?? These people are so insane it's frightening.

Nail 'em up, I say!!

[Az]

38. They already built one

I don't have links but there was a park built some time ago in Florida that had park employees walking around in bible costumes and rides based on bible stories.

[supernova]

43. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker used to run Heritage Park USA

just over the border in South Carolina during the glory years of their show. :puke: :puke:

P J O'Rourke wrote a hilarious piece about visiting there with his girlfriend.

[jmowreader]

107. Sam Kinison's Heritage USA joke

Jesus is sitting in heaven going through the Bible, going "where the fuck did I say build a water slide? Where did I say build an old folks' home and use it as a tax writeoff?"

[smirkymonkey]

61. Just when I thought this world couldn't get

any crazier! "You must be 'this' tall to get crucified"... God, save us from your followers!

[ikojo]

102. The Jesus park was built by a Jew who converted to

fundie Christianity. He is hoping to attract and convert Jews.

http://holy-land.discount-tickets.us/holy-land.htm

[Lorien]

56. Oh man, that's sick

I've read various reviews of the film, and it seems St. Mel paints the Romans as hapless victims of Jewish politics, forced into doing terrible things to Jesus that they would rather not be a part of. This REALLY bothers me, because the Romans tortured and murdered tens of thousands for centuries; both as "entertainment" for the masses and as a political tool. They lined miles of roads with the tortured and dying on crucifixes, thousands upon thousand endured horrors similar to what is shown in Gibson's "Passion". The Romans were by no means reluctant to do what they did- it was routine operating procedure at the time.The fact that Gibson twists the facts in this way to create more anti-Semites among the masses is indeed frightening. Had the true realities of the time been portrayed in the film, the lesson taken away from it would be a positive one; governments can and do become too powerful; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the innocent that the government should protect often then become it's victims. Brutality has no place in a civilized society, period.

[Az]

10. Here is the environment this is playing to (lots of quotes)

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. -- Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993

There is going to be war, take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them.
-- Randall Terry, describing his plan at the 1995 National Operation Rescue

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God
-- George Bush

Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world -- only Christianity. -- Tom DeLay

We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell

If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth. -- Jerry Falwell

All the Ten Commandments and prayer is an acknowledgement of the Almighty God. We will not back down from that. -- Judge Roy Moore

God, the source of all knowledge, should never have been expelled from our children's classrooms. -- Ronald Reagan

For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. -- Ronald Reagan

I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night. -- Ralph Reed

The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. -- William Rehnquist

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over. -- Pat Robertson

Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history. -- Pat Robertson

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them. -- Pat Robertson

[Beetwasher]

11. It's Part and Parcel of the Full Blown Purity Crusade

Right now we are in the midst of a classic, full blown purity crusade. This happens when large portions of the populace feel threatened by both internal and external poisons that they feel need to be purged. The poisons are both moral/ethical as well as biological/chemical. The hysteria is palpable and unfortunately VERY dangerous. The way these crusades end are with human sacrifice (usually a war). Since we're already in the midst of a war, I have to believe it's not enough sacrifice of human blood and something even bloodier is in the works.

For more see www.psychohistory.com

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. You voiced some of my fears....

I was thinking about that myself after watching some of the press for the Gibson film.

This crusade was started 20 years ago by Ronnie, and has been on the move since then. We see it every day in the news, with the attempts to ban "evolution", the acceptence of faith-based initiatives, the cry of "victim" when they claim they can't pray in public, a president who claims to be doing God's work, the release of this film which is intentended by its creator to be a tool for turning people to Jesus... we are seeing the growth of the kind of religious movement that could very well kill our country.

Frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

[supernova]

13. I think it's more fear-based

than anything.

Our society, our world is changing at a pace that some people find scary. At the same time it's becoming smaller. I can sit here in my house and read about some guy in Guangzhou (sp?) province who couldn't sell his car to provide for his family. And I care about him.

The minute anybody starts spounting the "gotta uphold standards" line, I immediately smell fear of the modern world.

Used to be if you didn't like a group of people for cultural or religious reasons, you could just live apart from them and never have to be confronted with them on a daily basis or even *why* you disliked them. You could go on your merry way with your limited POV. That's not true anymore with our new, improved, slightly smaller, internet and microwave connected world.

There are gays you say? And they want rights, too? There are victims of disease that need medicine but can't pay for it so we must find a way to provide it? And what's that about indigenious peoples? They want their land back that the King gave my family in 1712?

I mean where will it all end up? Next thing you know, we'll all know each other and we might actually have to care about each other and stuff. :crazy:

Oh cruel world! Oh, the humanity!

/scarcasm

[Beetwasher]

15. Fear is the Essential Motivating Part of the Purity Crusade

They are afraid of being "infected" by gays, mad cow, terrorism. Janet's tit, etc. or any ideology they disagree with. The fact that all this stuff can now so easily find it's way into their home via TV and the internet makes it that much more threatening.

[Must_B_Free]

114. This is Pillar 2 of New World Order

The first involved the old biblical theme of 3000 dying to conscript us into that reality that "the world changed on 911"

Now we have a full frontal assault of terror to traumatize people into conscription. Free tickets being given out. Reports of obvious trauma, crying, unbelieveable review from the DUer confirms my suspicions, also people seen on TV. This film is essentially about the employment of the crucifiction as terror to traumatize the audience into a religious obedience.

[LeahMira]

14. Another take...

First of all, the headline on the front of the Sunday newspaper in Philly yesterday went something like: "Churches view film as helping to save souls." I wonder how in the world watching this film is going to help "save souls."

OK, here's a different perspective and one that I haven't seen elsewhere: http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/220.html

Mel Gibson unlocked the secret of why Americans have never confronted anti-Semitism in the
way that we did with the other great systems of hatred (racism, sexism, homophobia) when
he told a national t.v. audience on February 16 that "the Jews' real complaint isn't with my film
(The Passion) but with the Gospels." Few Christians today know the history of anti-Semitism
and the way that the Passion stories were central to rekindling hatred of Jews from generation
to generation. Many are embracing Gibson's movie and not understanding why Jews seem to
be so threatened. Gibson knows that for many Americans it is simply unimaginable to question
the Gospels.

(snip)

So let's understand that the attempt to revive Christian enthusiasm around the part of
the story that is focused on cruelty and pain is not only (or even primarily) a threat
to the Jews, but rather a threat to all those decent, loving, and generous Christians
who have found in the Jesus story a foundation for their most humane and caring
instincts. It is these Christians who are under assault by Mel Gibson's movie, and by the
particular form of Christian evangelicalism that it is meant to stimulate. Yet, in a deeper way,
the Gibson movie is likely to stimulate a broader assault on all of us who seek to build a world
based on caring and love, cooperation and generosity, by giving strength to the part within
each of us that despairs, the voice within each of us that tells us that cruelty is what is "really
how the other is, really how the world is," the voice inside each of us that feels that there is
no point in struggling to transform the world because it is too hopeless and too dominated by
craziness (and that is the point of the Jews in the Gospel calling for Jesus to be killed,
because it is saying "even the Jews, his own people" do this, because evil is dominant in the
world and always will be, and the only way out is to believe in Jesus and find salvation in
another world, and despair of changing this one).

[regnaD kciN]

69. While I'm normally a fan of Rabbi Lerner's writings...

...he generally goes off-base when he writes about Christianity (not surprisingly, since it's a faith tradition he's approaching from the outside). In large part, this is no exception.

There are passages in the Gospels (not all of them, counter to what Rabbi Lerner implies) that appear at this time to be anti-Judaic. However, what both critics of the Gospels and fundies who take them literally miss is that most of the criticisms found in the Gospels were not, at the time they were written, an attempt by one organized religion (Christianity) to attack another organized religion (Judaism)...rather, they were examples of infighting between one form of Judaism (followers of Jesus) and other forms of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, and so on). Some of the criticisms leveled in the Gospels are quite harsh...but no more so than what the Essenes, for example, were writing about their rival schools. It was, in short, "criticism from within." Christians make a serious mistake when they look at this criticism from the vantage point of two millenia and reduce it to a simple case of "the Christians" versus "the Jews," just as modern-day Jews make a mistake when they view said criticism as nothing other than generic "anti-Semitism."

Where I think Rabbi Lerner really misses the point, and thus weakens his argument, is when he sees Gibson's film as an "attempt to revive Christian enthusiasm around the part of the story that is focused on cruelty and pain" and relates it to the ways in which factions in his own Judaism have mistaken "the voice of pain" for "the voice of the Torah," thus giving divine sanction to, for example, the oppression of the Palestinians. Many of the texts cited by Israeli hard-liners has been the message of divinely-mandated war against non-Jewish peoples in the Holy Land, of conquest and cherem. The story of the Passion, in its ideal form, is the exact opposite of that -- it is the story of "cruelty and pain" as suffered oneself, not as being imposed on others in the name of God. And, to carry the message further, it is cruelty and pain which is overcome in the Resurrection, not by gaining vengeance on one's enemies, but on a non-violent, life-giving act of God.

So why worry about Gibson's film? Two reasons:

1) As I have mentioned before, it has been an unfortunately-common occurrence for the uncomfortable spiritual message of Passion stories, in which one is to see the role of one's own sin in driving Jesus to the Cross, to be evaded by resorting to a simplistic and quite un-Christian "us versus them" mentality, thus shifting any blame off of oneself and onto the scapegoat of "the Jews." It is not known yet whether or not The Passion allows for that mental evasion -- I could imagine a retelling of the Good Friday story that didn't. However, from what I know about Gibson, I fear that "us versus them" worldviews are a common thread both in his life (in particular, the ultra-traditionalist Catholicism he has become involved with) and work. This suspicion is not reduced by...

2) ...the whole way the film has been promoted based on the "us versus them" mentality -- possibly to the picture's benefit in terms of increased publicity and chance for financial profit. When the first news of this film came out, concerns were raised on behalf of both Jewish and official Roman Catholic organizations trying to ensure that the resulting motion picture did not fan the flames of anti-Semitism. Instead of dealing with these groups in a way that might assuage their fears, Gibson went on the offensive -- attacking both of them for "extremist" positions and painting himself as a martyr for religious truth at the hands of "liberals" and "political correctness." He then embarked on a heavy-duty marketing campaign aimed strongly at fundamentalists (the group that is least likely to be concerned about historical and scholarly examinations of the texts, in favor of "the unvarnished Gospel Truth"), practically turning a viewing of this film into a religious duty for many million devout religious traditionalists. (Indeed, there have been many accounts of "megachurches" renting out whole theaters on opening day to make sure their congregations attend.) Furthermore, this campaign was slowly (or not-so-slowly) skewed into an "us versus them" movement as well, with Mel joining with "true Christians" (and, presumably, the Vast Silent Majority of Middle America) to produce the sort of film that the Hollywood Liberal Elite, with their supposed devotion to amoral sex and violence, "doesn't want you to see." (Left unspoken here is the assumption, undoubtedly quite common in the target audience, to hear the term "Hollywood Elite" and think "Jewish.")

As I was saying, this marketing campaign might have been quite canny from a business perspective -- how else were you likely to fill the multiplexes for a foreign-language Biblical film, except by turning it into a religious obligation? Nonetheless, the tenor of this campaign, by itself, would seem to make it likely that The Passion's audience would come to the picture, and take away from it, an "us versus them" attitude, regardless of whether that message was found in the film itself. And, when you consider Gibson's own tendencies toward that combative, "good versus evil" attitude, it would be, at least for me, hard to believe that it wouldn't be found in the film itself as well. And that, as opposed to the very nature of a film based on Jesus's death, is what should have Lerner and others concerned, not the Gospels.

(For another critique of Gibson's film, this by Rev. Mark Stanger, see http://www.thewitness.org/agw/stanger021104.html.)

[LeahMira]

82. Thank you for your interesting comments...

Where I think Rabbi Lerner really misses the point, and thus weakens his argument, is when he sees Gibson's film as an "attempt to revive Christian enthusiasm around the part of the story that is focused on cruelty and pain" and relates it to the ways in which factions in his own Judaism have mistaken "the voice of pain" for "the voice of the Torah," thus giving divine sanction to, for example, the oppression of the Palestinians. Many of the texts cited by Israeli hard-liners has been the message of divinely-mandated war against non-Jewish peoples in the Holy Land, of conquest and cherem. The story of the Passion, in its ideal form, is the exact opposite of that -- it is the story of "cruelty and pain" as suffered oneself, not as being imposed on others in the name of God. And, to carry the message further, it is cruelty and pain which is overcome in the Resurrection, not by gaining vengeance on one's enemies, but on a non-violent, life-giving act of God.


You certainly took some time organizing your thoughts, and I appreciate that. I do think that you missed the point of, or at least skimmed the edges around the point of Rabbi Lerner's statement... or I could be mistaken... but this is what I take from it.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that Christianity views "salvation" as the reward, coming in the afterlife, for a life well-lived in time. Realistically, Christians do see that "bad things happen to good people," but it seems to me that Christians are consoled or reassured by their belief that all the injustices this life may bring will be addressed and somehow set right in eternity. Certainly those individuals who are devout Christians (as opposed to those who are Christian in name only) do what they can to alleviate suffering and to address injustice in the world, but at the same time they believe that those who suffer will receive their reward in heaven. It seems that they accept the inevitability of suffering and look to the passion and crucifixion for their logic. Even Jesus, whom Christians see as the most perfect of men, was subjected to horrible suffering, and he dealt with that suffering by first of all accepting and submitting to it and then by miraculously living past death.

Rabbi Lerner states that "cruelty is not destiny." By that he means that simply because suffering and injustice have been around in the world for millennia, suffering and injustice are not therefore destined to continue in the world into the future. I think that his "messianic" vision, if you can call it that, is not of a world set right by divine intervention but of a world set right by human intervention. From that vision it follows that individuals need to not only do what they can to alleviate suffering and to address injustice in this life, but that they should also not accept the existence of these things as inevitable. Death is not the beginning of the setting right of things, but the tragic end of each person's opportunity to do his share to set things right and to heal the world.

Put simply, I thnk that Christians believe that the messiah (however one might envision the idea of messiah) will come at the end of time to cleanse the earth of evil. I think that Rabbi Lerner believes that the messiah will come when the earth has already been cleansed of evil by human effort and so is ready to receive and appreciate the perfection embodied in the concept of messiah.

So, what does all that have to do with "The Passion." I think Rabbi Lerner would say that its focus on suffering reinforces the idea that we somehow must accept and learn to live with some, or even a great deal of suffering and injustice in life. As he says:
In post 9/11 America, many people have given up on the hopeful vision of social change movements.
They have turned to a deep pessimism in which the idea of a world based on love, cooperation and
generosity to the Other is alternately ridiculed and disdained as unrealistic and dangerous. A cynical
realism holds sway in the media and mainstream American culture and political institutions, placing
American progressive and visionary thinkers on the defensive. No wonder, then, that many Christians
are attracted to interpretations of their religious tradition which emphasize the danger and cruelty
in the world while sidelining aspects of the Gospel which teach compassion and solidarity with the
oppressed.

Jesus lived, we are told, for thirty-three years, the last three of which were spent teaching publicly and demonstrating through his personal example just how individuals can transform the world. By focusing only on the last twelve hours of his life, Gibson's film effectively ignores the person that a friend of mine likes to call "Christ the Revolutionary" while focusing entirely upon the "suffering Christ."

Artistically speaking, of course, many film makers have focused on suffering. Don't the Rambo movies do that? The theme of suffering and transcendance is part of a legitimate film genre. No problem there.

What is problemmatic, at least to me, is the almost single-minded enthusiasm that many Christians are showing for the depiction of Christ's suffering and their efforts to conflate that suffering with their own salvation. Again, Rabbi Lerner says this better than I can:
So, part of the struggle is to reclaim and reaffirm the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus who retains hope for
building love right here, the Jesus who unabashedly proclaims that the Kingdom of Heaven has
arrived (which is to say, that it is here on earth, that the world right now can be based on love and
kindness, and that we don't have to wait for some future time or "the end of days" as described by
Isaiah, because it is here now, we can make it happen right away by the way that we live our lives).
And it is this voice of Jesus that The Passion movie seeks to marginalize or make invisible.

[stopthegop]

17. not if it portrays the events as news accounts say it does..

but it's interesting how many people want it to be...the concept of sacrifice is often looked down on in our culture..this is the cost paid for the sweetness and light of the rest of Christianity..

it's a convenient tool that many can use to bash Christianity (without seeing the movie)...

[chookie]

18. What is it meant to do?

Given that the movie is being promoted by the right wing evangelical crowd, I think it is safe to assume that the film frames the story of Christ from a right wing political perspective. This is what is meant when they say it is a "real" and "authentic" telling -- that it does not promote Jesus as a "liberal", but rather as fulfilling their version of things.

The message, as far as I understand it, is "Look at how Jesus suffered -- for YOUR sins!!!" Given that the people who are promoting it are ultra-conservative righties -- I think it is safe to assume that "sins" means things like "homosexuality", rather than greed.

Given that the people who are promoting it are dominionists, I think it is safe to assume that the message of the movie will be the promotion of political activism among Christians, especially because this is an election year. True ChristiansTM must do all they can to beat back the sodomites and baby killers, so God will restore his protective shield around America again. America must support Israel unquestioningly, because God commanded it.

The movie's violence is meant to stir people to action -- given that we are living during a period of rising fundamentalist political activism, and in a war that many consider part of End Times scenarios, I believe the film will be said to reinforce all these ideas.

I think while the film will get "AMEN!"-ed by fundies, what it may do, more stealthfully, is to persuade people sitting on the fence, so to speak, stirred up emotionally by the images of violence against their Lord, to buy into their world-view -- much along the lines of how the violence of Sept 11 2001 made so many people who had opposed Bush to call a truce, or even give their support to him.

Watch for Bush to be portrayed as Christ-like during this election year -- i.e. the innocent man of principle being "scourged" by the godless Democratic party because of his moral values.

[tjwash]

39. The amazing thing is....

....the fundies screaming the loudest about WWJD, are the ones that have no clue whatsoever of his actions in the bible. Just one example is John 4:7. Rather than judging a prostitute at a well, he asks her for a cup of water and gives her comfort for the mistakes in her life. What do you think Robertson or Falwell would do?

It makes me personally angry when Christianity gets hijacked by these people. Jesus was NOT an uptight fundamentalist. He was extremely progressive and radical, but was not opposed to slapping around the fundies of the day. An example being Matthew 23:27 where he refers to fundamentalists of the day as "whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."

Of course you can't expect anything less from someone who's dad thinks the holocaust was fiction. The apple does not fall far from the tree you know....

[chookie]

41. Exactly!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

The people you mention do not bring the life of Jesus Christ to mind, but rather seem to embody the Pharisees and various other hypocrites, using religious texts to support their own selfish ends or devious actions.

Despite Gibson's claims that this film is all about forgiveness, somehow I don't see mobs of believers leaving the theatres to agitate and act to bring comfort to the suffering, the weak, the oppressed, and to forgive their enemies.

Rather, I see them more likely to be galvanized against sinners like sodomites, heretics and unbelievers. I suspect that it will be "suggested" that they need to get behind a "godly man" like George W Bush.

[barbaraann]

20. Googling for: Hitler Passion Play

Just one result:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2000/00.06.09/arts.html

...
The most interesting chapters of Mr. Shapiro's book deal with Oberammergau under the Nazis. Adolf Hitler first attended the passion play in August 1930, although his presence was overshadowed by visitors such as the British prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald; a future American vice president, Alben Barkley; Henry Ford; Max Planck, and the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore. As early as November 8, 1931, there was a swastika banner planted atop the mountain overlooking the village. According to Mr. Shapiro, underemployed Oberammergau natives joined the Nazis in record numbers.

By March 1933, swastikas were ubiquitous. Hitler returned to Oberammergau as Germany's dictator in August 1934. Jesus was played by an active young Nazi -- who would later maintain that the role proved that he could not have been anti-Semitic. Of those who participated in the 1934 play, the villager who played Judas was the only known anti-Nazi. Through the strategic elimination of one paragraph, the play appeared to call for the annihilation of the Jews.

Oberammergau did not stage its play again under Nazi auspices, but Hitler continued to stress its importance. During the war he told his staff he considered it "vital that the passion play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans." Mr. Shapiro estimates that 60% of the villagers were active Nazis; nevertheless, the Oberammergau play was never de-Nazified. Indeed, the American military government there bankrolled the first postwar production, which included a smiling American boy as a symbol of American-German cooperation. Indeed, according to Mr. Shapiro, local priests have been more honest in acknowledging the play's inconsistencies than admiring visitors, who, he points out, are often the most emotionally invested in defending Oberammergau's traditions.


50,300 hits -- might mean there's some connection....

[Fescue4u]

21. ABSOLUTELY!

Those reels are heavy. If a projectionist were to drop one on his toe, it would not doubt break it.

[Pathwalker]

22. It is blood wine for the faithful, designed to incite rioting

for when Smirky loses in Nov., and the Repukes refuse to cede power to the "Godless, heathen Democrats". IMO.

[stopthegop]

24. serious question: are you serious?

do you honestly believe the movie is intended to cause riots?

[Pathwalker]

25. No - not NOW. It's intended to rile them up for the election.

I expect things to escalate, and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, etc. to go on TV later this summer and start lumping the words Jews and Democrats together - in their usual code speak to the faithful. All very underhanded, but seen enough to stir the haters into acting stupidly, should Jr. lose. Some of my kookier extreme right relatives are warning me that if Jr. loses, they're going to riot. They say they're willing to incite civil war, if that's what it takes to keep the Repukes in power. I'd say they're mostly harmless, but they are heavily armed idiots. But, most of them live in the wilds, out west, so I don't worry about them...much.

I think this movie; while something I think Mel believes in and was done to promote his right wing version of Jesus, will ultimately serve only to divide Americans. And that's why the right wing is going to use it for their banner. They're too close to domination - they have no intention of backing down, and they are totally ruthless.

[stopthegop]

27. thanks for replying n/t

[Az]

26. Perhaps not riots

Perhaps not intentionally. But there is a desire within the religious right to react with divine wrath against all who would deny their dogma. I have been to too many atheist rallies. I have been shouted at by too many fundimentalists. I have seen the rage in their eyes. They want to feel vindicated for their anger at those that do not agree with them. I have been told that they will laugh at me in hell when they are in heaven. This is the furor that the Passion insites.

We just had a pilot wig out and evangelyze the passengers of a flight recently. We had people running around in Israel during the Millenial celebration trying to trigger armageddon. Keep in mind this is a religion that says the world will end and thats a good thing. They believe that what happens after you die is superior to what transpires before as long as you play by the rules.

In 1212 the crusades decided that god's mercy would not allow anything to happen to the innocence of children. To this end they formed an army of children and marched it on the Holy Land. The few that survived the march were captured and sold into slavery. A people that believe a thing can be twisted around the thing. In the name of love people can kill. To save an immortal soul a body may be burned. Thus the Passion stokes the fires of belief.

[seabeyond]

29. i dont think movie was made for this purpose

i think the fundamentalist has found a use for it

[stopthegop]

30. ummm...huh? n/t

[seabeyond]

32. your question serious

so you believe this movie is intended to create riot

no. i dont think this movie was intended to create riot

i believe though that the fundamentalist have found a use for this movie to create a further anger. it wasnt the makers intent, but i believe it is going to be used for that

[stopthegop]

33. got it...thanks

[LeahMira]

86. If not, what was the intent?

believe though that the fundamentalist have found a use for this movie to create a further anger. it wasnt the makers intent, but i believe it is going to be used for that

From what I've read, Mel Gibson's intent was to portray Jesus' final sufferings realistically. He seems to hope that people will be inspired by the love demonstrated by a man (or G-d) who was willing to suffer incredible pain because that pain would serve as atonement for all the sins that humans would commit down through all the ages.

So what do we conclude?

Do we conclude that no matter how sinful any individual might be, the atonement has already been made for that sinfulness?

Certainly there seems to be no particular motive for trying to avoid sin, since whether we sin or not it will do nothing to alleviate the suffering that has already taken place.

Or is there some intent to make some individuals feel less guilty for what happened to Jesus while others are made to feel more guilty? Will, for example, some Christian fundamentalists claim that while they live good lives, those "serious sinners" among us who are unrepentant homosexual or those of us who have had abortions or those of us who are quite proudly "godless" are somehow more responsible for Jesus' suffering?

Or shall the "sinners" be portrayed as incredibly heartless for refusing to love a man who suffered so much to save them from eternal damnation? Shall that alleged heartlessness mean that "sinners" are somehow a group of people who are "less than" in the world?

Where is this all going, and what exactly is the intent here?

[seabeyond]

97. from my experience only

i see it as even in persecution jesus loved the people that beat him. that even in hte anger a person may direct to us, that we can embrace their anger in our love.

and in personal experience i can say, it works, in my limited experience with angry sad fearful people

[Az]

34. Of course

The reason for the making of the Passion is due to Mel's and others sense of loss at not having people seeing what they believe to be the truth. It is made as a testimony to their belief. It is their vision.

But the effect will be to inflame the extremes within the believers. It is the effect that is troubling. I do not suggest that they sat down and decided they wanted to create a social change that would bring about such things. They believe that they path is one of virtue and goodness. I do not doubt that Mel believes he is acting in the highest possible of intentions. I also do not doubt that he is playing with fire.

[wellstone_democrat]

116. see #41 also

I think Chookie makes some very good points about how the current Bush* marketing, the film and the likely thrust of the campaign can all merge. Riots if it doesn't work out? Well, there was talk of them in October 2000 all over talk radio if the election didn't turn out "correctly"

[Sgt. Peppers]

23. I have tickets for Tuesday

Me, my wife, and my two children.

[seabeyond]

28. why any parent

would take children to this movie. wow.........

another wow.........

no way. what would be the purpose to sit a child in front of 45 minutes of torture of a human being. are you saying you see no other way to teach christianity, the love jesus has for us. that in a childs young psychic you feel sitting children in front of pure ugliness to another human doesnt do something to them

i really only see one reason for this.

you wont be finding my children in the theater, 6 and 9. i dont put them in front of ed ed and eddy, cowardly dog for stupidness, powergirl and others for anger. certainly not feeding them this, for night mares, and months of fear.

[Beetwasher]

35. Indeed

You sound like a responsible parent.

From what I've seen, this is no movie for children unless you want them to have nightmares...

[Cleita]

31. So Mel tried to be authentic.

The actors speak Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew, BUT? We have another blue-eyed Jesus here and actors in the primary roles are decidedly European looking, not Semitic. So much for authenticity. Now Jesus could have had blue eyes if Josephus's story about him that he was the illigitimate son of a woman named Miriam and an unnamed Roman soldier were true, or he could have had blue eyes if he lived in Europe during the Middle Ages because of intermarriage, but in that era and geographical place, for a family that claimed to be descended from King David, I doubt it.

So this story is told from the biased point of view of the New Testament's gospels and is merely a Christian religious story being retold in vivid color on a wide screen like many before it and I'm sure it will fall flat as entertainment, except maybe amongst sadists, like all the other Jesus films that preceeded it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

36. They put Cavezelle...

in brown contact lens, to make him more "authentic".

Still, it doesn't change the fact that the cast is a bunch of white/European folks... yup, just like Jesus. ;)

[Enraged_Ape]

71. Sure wish I knew why Jesus keeps getting played by white-bread...

haoles. Nothing against white-bread haoles (I, myself, am one of them), but we're talking about a Middle-Eastern carpenter of 2,000 years ago. Do you suppose he really looked like one of the Beach Boys?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. Josephus said what, where?

"Now Jesus could have had blue eyes if Josephus's story about him that he was the illigitimate son of a woman named Miriam and an unnamed Roman soldier were true"

Chapter, verse please. I have the entire work of Josephus, so I'll be able to check as soon as I get home ...

[Cleita]

57. Here's a link.

http://www.cuc.claremont.edu/bible/SGuide1c.htm

This is a Catholic study group that has references outside of scripture and church documents of Jesus. The first reference is to Josephus, who has a paragraph on him, which some scholars think is a forgery. Below that are references to the Talmud, which brings up the question of his paternity. He is called here Jesus ben Pantera, the name of his father.

Sorry, I didn't see that the reference hadn't been attributed to Josephus, but I remember in a dictionary, which became tatters long ago, that the name, Jesus ben Pantera, was attributed to Josephus. If you have the complete works, you can probably find the reference.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. so, Josephus never said that, okay

got it. thanks!

[Cleita]

59. Sorry I wasn't picky snitty on a post where Josephus is really irrelevent

to a post about a blue-eyed Jesus. The point was that unless Mary had done the wild thing with a European, then possibly the historical Jesus (another questionable fact) could be European looking. So there are some references in the ancient writings that this might have happened. My post was about Mel's so called authenticity. We all know that Jesus is probably a generic composition of various Jewish religious radicals of the time and who were probably stoned or hung, not crucified.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

62. evidentally Gibson isn't so picky snitty either

if the rumors are true that he added in scenes from some medivial fiction, he can't claim that he's being "true to the gospels" as he said. Who knows? We'll find out in a week or so.

You have a point. If Gibson went to all the trouble to make it in Aramaic and Latin he could at least have found some Middle Eastern looking actors. Hey, this is Hollywood, he knows his audience.

[Cleita]

64. He's catering to the medieval European Christianity.

This is how Christianity became defined in the Middle Ages.

[truth2power]

40. I posted my concern about this last week

in one of the "passion" threads.

After seeing Gibson interviewed on Prime Time Live and watching some clips of the movie I said that what I saw seemed gratuitously bloody.

Even worse, some who viewed the film at their church seemed abnormally overwhelmed by emotion. I had a strong feeling that the film was totally capable of triggering extreme anger toward "godless liberals" and others currently the target of the RW.

I think AZ is exactly right. We need to be aware.

[musiclawyer]

42. I'm not Jewish

But have Jewish friends who shrug and say "it's a movie" that's all.

[revree]

44. Just ignore it.

As soon as the next Matrix movie comes out, or Lord of the Rings 84, it will all be out with the wash anyway.

[bobbieinok]

48. my fundamentalist colleagues claim that both Lord of the Rings

and Matrix (at least the first one) contain the Christian message

[seabeyond]

52. the universal message

one can say christian, or any other religion since bottomline they are all saying the same, can be the universe experiece the love and lite experience, source experience, there are all kinds of tracks on that.

i see this world as one big connection. what happens in self is happening in family, happening in community happening nationally and happening universally, we are given all different ways of seeing it. and the more willing and open we are to all different site the more we see

[Ksec]

45. No.

Not unless you consider the Bible dangerous. I dont.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

47. The book may not be dangerous...

but how the people choose to interpret it can be. History shows us just how VERY dangerous.

[Ksec]

50. true- but the book

is about love and forgiveness. People have perverted that.

[lazarus]

72. huh?

That book is full of more tales of perversion and injustice and atrocity than any other single work I've ever read.

It's about love and forgiveness? The being most in the bible most in need of forgiveness is god.

[Mari333]

46. I wish they would remake the Handmaids Tale

That would be a wake up call for quite a few people.
Ive always wished there were a movie about 21st century women going back in time armed with M 16s during the witch burnings in Europe. I would love to make that movie ha!
The Passion is merely going to make Mel a hell of a lot of money, and as a former catholic, I yawn at the thought of all the blood and gore because thats what we saw so much as kids, over and over again til we became numb to it.
The churches around here are lapping it up and Mel is laughing all the way to the bank
Nice thing is..I dont celebrate Easter or Ashwednesday and I gave up LENT for LENT..
Mel will make a MINT on this, and what REALLy cracks me up are preachers stating how wonderful it will be that people finally hear about Jesus..well DOH I dont know anything about Jesus Ive been living in a cave in Mars all my life..
In the meantime, the other Mideastern fertility gods are just as interesting as mythology. m y t h o l o g y.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. If Kids See This Movie, They Will Start Crucifing Each Other!

It will be Mel Gibson's fault that little kids around America will start nailing each other to crosses since he made a movie about it! Won't sombody please think of the children!

And as for the Christians, all they need is one little push, and they will be out mass murdering Jews and homosexuals and athiests. You know how us Christians are, little more than beasts and we have no souls either.

I hear that Gibson has inserted subliminable messages in the closing credits that trigger Xtians into an anti-semetic trance!!!

[drdigi420]

53. religion is dangerous

fanatics will always exist, but i dont think outlawing religion is the answer. Increased education should put more societal pressure on religious folks to keep it to themselves, and that's all we really ask, isn't it? Just to not have it thrown in our faces all the freakin time?

Thats all.

get god off the money, out of the schools, and out of politics

[seabeyond]

54. so 3 years of bush

telling us to keep our mouth shut or we are unpatriotic, a lifetime of democrats backing freedom of speech, you chosing to restrict speech.

doesnt feel right to me, grinnin

[Astarho]

60. This movie was made for one reason

above all others: Mel Gibson wanted it made. He has his reasons and of course others have seen that it is useful to their agenda. Without seeing it I can't say much more about it, but to me it seems as if Mel got distracted by the violence and lost Jesus' underlying message of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

Mel is claming it is authentic, with the use of Latin and Aramaic and from what I understand is an accurate portrayal of Judea in the 1st century AD, but Mel ultimately follows the Gospels of the New Testament, where Pilate is reluctant to execute Jesus as opposed to the worst example of Roman occupation thuggery of the time, and Mary Magdelene is not portrayed as one of the most important disciples (as she may have been).

As for the further reaching social conventions, I don't think this movie is placing any anger and hostility that is not there already, but it may provide a focus for them, and bring these feelings to the surface.

As for "Absolute Dogmatic Authority and Relativistic Humanist Morality" these two extremes have always existed and most people fall somewhere in between, but the ones on the Absolute Dogmatic end are more vocal, simply being absolutly sure makes more more likely to try and convince others.

I see it differently, the reactionary Christians on the see "Multi-culti pluralism" as a form of cultural invasion. As a responce to this invasion they embrace their own culture that much more and move further along that Absolute Dogmatic end of the spectrum (A similar thing was seen in Hitler's Germany against the internationalism of communism, or today with Muslim fundamentalists who see western culture invading them). Eventually, they will find someone who shares their views (at least in part) like Mel Gibson.

[arewethereyet]

63. No I don't think so

the real meat of the Passion (the event, not the movie) is a very personal connection each Christian must make to Christ. It is OUR sins that he suffered this for. Its not us/them its me/Christ and why I should be trying like heck to be a better person.

[x-g.o.p.er]

65. The movie, no. The zealots who wish to force their views on others, yes

[Malva Zebrina]

66. good questions

I do not see it as dangerous. It is the culmination of an expression that typifies our society today and it's religious mania.

How can it be dangerous, when all it does is really support how religion is going, and indeed how politics and religion combined is going in our increasingly deteriorating society?

It is not dangerous. What is dangerous is the support of a film like this by clergy and others who believe. That is the dangerous part.

Sure it is the last hurrah, I think.

Spong wrote "Christianity Must Change or Die"

and that is the fear. People are fearful that they must let go--that they must make room--that they must admit other humand beings into their lives and not shut them out, as the Bible says. Tribal warfare is for barbarians only.

we do need to transcend that and develop a more compatible way to love each other and that means that religion has to be transcended. It is too far into barbarism.

[SOteric]

70. Possibly, but I don't believe so, Az.

The Passion is first and foremost an idea, and ideas are not dangerous; though often their adherents are.

Ultimately, I gather that your real question (if it is a question and not a statement of position) isn't so much about The Passion as it is about whether presenting these sorts of ideas can stir up an already tense situation.

The movie won't be giving the Religious Right any feelings of anger, those are already present. For almost a thousand years, the default position in western society has been that Christianity is correct and Atheism is wrong, it's adherents laughable or insane. Only in the last 200 years of our history has this position been openly questioned much less contested. In the last 75 years, it's actively changed. The default position of society is now that reasonable people do not believe in Gods and that those who do are more and more often judged wrong or laughable or insane. That's actually a fairly short space of time in the historical scope to have lost the position of power and become the whipping boy.

Just as power struggles in relationships, work environments and sporting contests engender intense response disproportionate to the struggle itself, so too, do matters of faith and non-belief. And just like struggles in these other aspects of our lives, those who feel the loss of power struggle more exuberantly than those who feel the rise of it. Trust me; they're already angry.

The film may likely stir the animosities some of the angrier elements of the Christian Right. But it will simultaneously stir debate among those of us on the Christian Left and those of you who are agnostic and Atheist. As it's so obviously doing in this forum and other fora of its kind on the internet and in the popular press. Your post is stirring something.

I understand the tendency to fear emotional responses from those who don't understand them. I understand the inclination to fear the emotional responses of those who are intense, who are zealous, - and especially zealously different than one is oneself. I think that fear is valid, but not correct.

I see undertones in many of the panicked, fear-based allusions to the kind of militant zealotry of religious adherents found in the Middle East from many who've espoused similar thoughts. Yet there are several mitigating factors still more dominant in our culture than have been present in theirs, as well as exacerbations present in their culture and society not found in ours.

It's not time yet to head for the hills and arm ourselves against our fervent, fanatical, passionate, obsessed and spirited brethren. We get the kind of society to which we're willing to be open. If we are willing to foment fear rather than understanding; if we are willing to mock, to regard as insane, to marginalise one another in the matters of religion we get a kind of angry, warring ‘us and them’ society. If we can put aside our fear and bitterness and show one another respect we get a more orderly, more accepting society.

I don't agree with you, though, about the war going on. I agree that the Christian Right has bitten off a segment of power and vengeance within the U.S. I don't see the Christian Right as a global influence. In the grand scheme of time and history, of spirituality and faith worldwide, of global influence and power, the Christian Right is mote; a droplet of rain in the sea. And that, along with the fact that God in his infinite wisdom has declined to come down to earth and smote the rest of us upside our reason-loving little heads, is really what’s pissing them off.

[Az]

73. It does not create the anger, it fans it

This movie is setting up to be the battle cry for whatever follows. It is going to divide people like few movies have ever done before.

We here on the left are able to discuss such matters. It is largely what makes us who we are. We are open to debate on many issues. But the right is all about being absolutely right. Listen to how George and company are going to be campaigning. They are casting themself as being certain to the lefts uncertainty. The right craves absolute certainty. This movie gives them the emotional boost to their belief to override their sense of duty to our society.

This movie is designed to fan the flames of their passion. It is designed to infuriate them. To make them want to stand up and fight against any that would deny their truth. The last 2000 years is full of examples of what that passion can do. This is the flame they are calling back.

The right has a burning hatred for our liberal uncertainty. It is insenses that we could even question whether some are evil or not. In their black and white version of the world that which is Evil must be purged. In our world we have to consider their values and decide instead if they are violating someones rights.

Our society is complex. The Passion calls for a collapse of that complexity. It calls for a rejection of the social contract. It pours the fuel on the ember that has been burning for 500 years. And seeks to set the world ablaze with its one true light again.

[SOteric]

79. Do you know and like any Fundamentalists?

Are you well-acquainted with people from the Christian Right?

I don't get the sense from reading your comments that the people who comprise the Christian Right are to you anything more than an abstract mass of negative sentiments.

From my perspective, it's you and people like you fanning the fires.

In my perspective, the Left is not filled to a man with reasonable people who relish their uncertainty and debate with caution. It is resplendent in stubborn, foolish, simple-minded, bigoted, dogmatic and authority-loving people, just as is the Right and the Christian Right. A realistic assessment of GD:2004 should convince even the most casual observer that there are liberals with a love of toeing the line, dictating and following absolute positions.

I have many dear friends whose religious fervor exceeds my own. They are not unquestioningly obedient to authority. Most of my friends and acquaintances who can be described as Fundamentalists are family-oriented people. Many do not agree with the message being put forth in The Passion, it has some glaring inaccuracies according to many biblical scholars, it profits in an unseemly way from the death of Christ (a sacred act in the view of heartfelt Christians everywhere), and it focuses only on the days, the violence and the betrayal surrounding his death, - not his works and his message.

The movie is designed to make money. In Hollywood, one makes money by causing a stir. Sex is no longer shocking. Violence is no longer noteworthy. Religion is the last bastion of an industry that thrives on controversy. Don't give them what they want.

You are fanning more flames of 'war' with this thread and your message than I have seen in all of my Fundie friends.

From my perspective, it feels rather like you're trying to launch a persecution of an abstract mass of people based on the as yet unmanifest potential response to a movie.

[lazarus]

80. How many

of your fundamentalist friends are considered to be "not citizens" by this or any other president of the US?

How many of your Fundie friends have lost jobs because of their religion?

How many of your Fundy friends have to hide their religion because they know they'd lose business because of it?

I'm an atheist. GHW Bush said he considered me not a citizen. I've lost a job because my atheism was discovered. I had to hide my atheism when managing a store in a small southern town, because the Fundies would have boycotted it otherwise.

I've known a lot of Fundies. I'm related to a lot of Fundies. And Az is exactly right. We're at war. This is a cultural war. No, not every person who self-identifies as a fundamentalist is a knowing participant in that war, but it's going on, nonetheless. Read up on Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism. That's the leading edge of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

[SOteric]

81. I'm sorry for your experiences, but no we are not at war

and this line of thinking, this line of posting is an irresponsible, unconscionable persecution, a fanning of the flames of fear over what I will again point out is a unmanifest, potential response to a movie.

I suspect you're allowing your understandable emotional responses to the hardships you've suffered in expressing your Atheism to colour your judgements of whether this movie is dangerous and this thread is exceptable in its message.

Think for a minute, think long and hard and honestly: If the message were reversed, - if Az were calling for Christians to be afraid of Atheists and forecasting violence based on a unmanifest potential reaction to a new Scientific discovery, wouldn't that strike you as wrong?

I really believe folks need to calm down about this. In 6 months time the movie will be at the bottom of the bargin bin at Blockbuster. It'll make a bit of a tempest for a time and then will be heard from no more. It's a movie.

And believe me, I will support you in making George Bush and his band of thugs go away. :pals:

[lazarus]

84. The difference is

That atheists are persecuted, and that atheists are discriminated against.

And that the leaders of the fundie/right movement have made it a goal to dominate the world. They declared war, not us.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml

[SOteric]

88. If you believe that I have not been persecuted or discriminated

against because of my Roman Catholicism you are deluding yourself.

[Az]

90. Oppression

Yes, your belief will draw ire. Any belief will draw ire from someone somewhere. But I would ask you to name one elected US official that is an open atheist.

I can name gay elected officials. I can name Catholics. I can name Protestants. I can name Jews. I can name Muslems. I cannot name an atheist elected to any office.

I derive my rights only by the continuing permission of those who believe I am damned. Some of them have already stated that they do not believe I have the right to be called a citizen(former president G Bush Sr). Now while I have a great deal of confidence in the tolerance of my fellow citizens the call to raise the passion of the more fanatical believers does cause me some concern.

Forgive my presumptiveness but oppression is a very real concern to those whose voice cannot be heard.

[SOteric]

92. Presumptive indeed.

"Yes, your belief will draw ire. Any belief will draw ire from someone somewhere. But I would ask you to name one elected US official that is an open atheist.

I can name gay elected officials. I can name Catholics. I can name Protestants. I can name Jews. I can name Muslems. I cannot name an atheist elected to any office."

This is irrelevant to the discussion unless you mean to put forth the idea your 'oppression' and persecution is a direct, organised plan instituted by all of the elected officials of the United States based on faith alone. Or that all elected officials of the United States screen their constituents by faith to determine who is worthy of their protection and who is not.

I'm going to need a great deal of evidence from some sources I regard as credible before I wear such a tinfoil hat.

Persecution, discrimination and oppression are orchestrated by subgroups of the total population. Hate is an equal opportunity oppressor.

For you to assume without any knowledge of me, my life or the sort of things I and those whom I love may have endured, that somehow your set of traumas are more profound, more important or in some way exceed my own smacks of a very short-sighted brand of bigotry. And it's an uncharitible little contest, to boot.

I regret that any one individual has suffered on the account of their belief. I do not persecute other people. I do not believe others should be eligible for suffering regardless of faith and especially on the account of faith.


"Forgive my presumptiveness but oppression is a very real concern to those whose voice cannot be heard."

Argumentum ad Misericordiam. There are plenty of persecuted, angry hurt and oppressed people to go around. As much as it may rouse my human compassion, it does not grant anyone leave of responsible speech. Or in anyway imply permissions to persecute in return.

The season of Lent begins tomorrow and not coincidentally the film is scheduled to open then. I speculate that nothing more will occur but that a good many people of faith find their spirituality enhanced by an over-hyped popular film while they ponder the stations of the cross. Perhaps it will encourage them to read the book and learn something about his teachings as well.

While I can acknowledge a possibility for sporadic rowdy nights of wilding, it's the Jewish population I would be concerned for with regard to this film and the ignorant amoung the Fundies.

Our Interfaith Community stood vigil at mosques after 9/11 and sundry other points in time. We'll hold the same vigil for the synagogues if the situation warrants it, but no one hereabouts seems to think the situation is going to warrant it. Even the Rabbi who spoke on campus this morning expressed himself unconcerned, noting that Judaism has historically fared better in societies with strong Christian populations. He believes it will likely just enhance their faith and thinks that's okay.

[Az]

93. Reaction

Forgive my reaction. I do not presume to know what trials you or anyone else have suffered. If you took that from my comments I appologise. And no I do not think who suffers most wins the battle. But awareness must be made. Atheists are still in the closet. If we bang on the door a bit too loud you will have to forgive us. We want out.

The relationship between the Jews and the Christians is not straight forward. Many of the Xian sects believe that in order for Jesus to return the Jews must return to Israel. So their compassion for their plight is not entirely selfless. And the fact that they believe that the return is in part signaled by the destruction of the Jews in Israel further taints their motivations.

Theirs is a symbiotic relationship. Atheists and Fundimentalists are not as entwined. Numbers of ours have found death at the hands of Inquisitors and Excommunication throughout the ages. Ours is a more head to head struggle. Where Jews and Xians may differ in details Fundies and Skeptics differ in the entirety of the universe.

So yes a Jew may find himself welcome in a crowd of Xians. Wary but welcome.

Until relatively recently in the US there were a great number of state and city ordances that made it impossible for an atheist to even be the town dog catcher. Oathes to god were often prerequisit for accepting office.

Organizations such as the Boy scouts discriminate against both gays and atheists. But only the gays get any press. This is not sour grapes. It is simply an attempt to raise awareness of the situation. If we do not speak up how will people know that these things happen? If George Bush Sr had said that he did not believe that gays deserved to be citizens how loud do you think the cry would have been from their community. We are going to be heard. Hopefully it will be alongside our theist friends defending the wall. But we will be heard.

[DS1]

96. Jesse Ventura is an atheist

[Az]

109. Sorry, wrong

After the flap about his comment that religion was a crutch Jesse quickly distanced himself from the atheist label. He publically stated that he believed in a god but thought that organized religion was the problem.

[lazarus]

100. Did you know

That a recent poll showed "atheist" to be the least likely minority to get elected president? Way down the list, below homosexual, woman, black, Muslim.

I've been physically assaulted. I've been threatened repeatedly. I've been terminated from jobs, and then told by the government official I should complain to that his biggest concern wasn't my job, but why I was an atheist.

I've been told that my atheism was likely to cost me a custody battle for my daughter. My ex-wife can apparently go through marriages like they're going out of style, but because she hits the church once every couple of months, she's a better parent.

There's a Catholic on the Supreme Court. How many open atheists are up there? There's been a Catholic President. How many atheist Presidents?

Heck, how many atheist characters are on television? We have gay sitcoms, Christian sitcoms, black sitcoms. Is there an atheist sitcom around? The closest we get is the Simpsons making snarky comments about religion. But notice they go to church even still.

Yeah, we can play duelling discrimination all day long, if you want. The point is, it was Christians discriminating against me. Who was discriminating against you? Most likely, other Christians. Not atheists.

It's the Dominionist fundamentalists I have a problem with here. Let's make sure we have that straight. And I think it's fairly obvious that Mel is one of them, and that this movie is playing into their hands.

[SOteric]

105. See my post number 92

And don't place your bets too heavily that my persecutors have not included Atheists. You'd be wrong.

[lazarus]

106. Well, after all

We're in such positions of power in politics.

Yeah, there are jerks out there. Atheism isn't a mantle of holiness that automatically makes one a perfect person.

But neither is Christianity.

And the point remains that Christians are by far in the majority in this country. And that atheists are regularly discriminated against by those Christians. That is a fact.

[SOteric]

110. I'm unclear as to when and where

in the entirety of my life much less this message board, that I have ever suggested that Christianity has a mantle of holiness, that Christians were pure and holy beings, or even that the priesthood transcended humanity and walked into the divine. So this passage in your post strikes me as bizarre, out of context, and suggestive of deeper issues you have either with me personally or with Christianity to such a degree that your judgement is question.

As for your remaining points, that Christians are in the majority: Again, I have never stated otherwise. I have not argued otherwise. I am baffled that you think a person of my intelligence needs this education.

As for fact, no I'm sorry. You have stated that Christians are in the majority - true. And that Atheists are discriminated against - I don't doubt it for a minute and have not argued this. But you've stated that they're discriminated against by 'those Christians.' That is an implication that all or even a majority of American Christians discriminate against Atheists. Which is markedly false.

The question in this thread isn't "do Atheists suffer discrimination" and I'm getting a little peeved at constantly having the subject matter redirected. The question that I joined the thread to answer is "Is The Passion of the Christ a dangerous movie?" To wit: will there be rioting in the streets and wilding with Atheists, Jews, Muslims and the ‘Wrong-Kind of-Christians’ being made to suffer for the death of Christ.

My opinion is no, there will not.

I have seen a tendency on this board for many people to lump Fundies together as an unindividuated mass, indicating they're all bad, worthy of revile, etc. I would argue that point both as a fallacy of hasty generalisation and against my personal experience. I do not suggest all Fundies are good and pure people anymore than I suggest they are all bad.

My point is not and has never been that Atheists, along with others, do not suffer discrimination and persecution. My point is that no group, not Fundies, not Atheists, not Christians, not even Buddhists (and yes, I know a prime example) are free of individuals who might seek to persecute others and do harm. But the vast majority of members of all these groups are people who simply try to go about their lives in peace.

- And, Fundies are a small subgroup of Christianity, their powerset is not as broad based and universal as they wish. Which I think pisses them off.

I do not believe that an over-hyped movie will rescind the social contract. I do not believe this for several reasons:

• Fundies who might engage in some sort of wilding behaviour are not in the majority. The combined groups of non-fundamentalist Christian, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Zoroastrians, Druids, Wicca’s, Pastrami-Sandwich-Worshippers, Those who believe DeKooning is God, etc. and Fundies who will be home washing their babies or at prayer meetings far outnumber any Fundies who might go wilding.
  
  
• Law enforcement is not in the back pocket of the Fundies, even if a few of it’s members may be Fundamentalists.
  
  
• Most Fundies are just exceptionally tightly-wound people trying to raise their families. They may be misguided, judgemental assholes, but they're not out for blood.
  
  
• The movie is being released during Christianity's holiest season. This is the time of year most devout Christians of any faith are most likely to spend in churches absorbed in worship.
  
  
• I know of a great many devout Christians and Fundamentalists who are appalled that any individual would attempt to profit from the death of Christ, the holiest act of their faith. Some may be shipping busloads of students, but others are boycotting.

I very much hope this makes clear my position and that you’ll cease arguing points I’m not contesting or attempting educate me on matters which I likely know far better than do you.

[lazarus]

111. final word from me

"I very much hope this makes clear my position and that you’ll cease arguing points I’m not contesting or attempting educate me on matters which I likely know far better than do you."

Possibly. And possibly not.

The subject isn't being redirected at all. You're merely fixating on one point that has been raised, and ignoring the rest. You're free to do so, but don't then claim that I'm not making any other points.

As for the film, the only thing to do is wait and see. I feel this is film is dangerous, and that it will inflame passions that will be taken out violently. I do not believe it will turn the average Christian into a raving loon.

But it is propaganda, and will do what propaganda always does.

That's the danger. We got sidetracked, both of us, on other issues. That happens in a thread like this. I'll be moving on now.

[SOteric]

113. Please show me

where I have claimed that you were not making any other points.

[DS1]

94. So you're fundamentally anti-fundamentalist

and seem pretty certain about.

[Az]

83. Yes I know many fundimentalists

And consider them friends. I have spent a great deal of time trying to find out what makes belief and religion work. I consider the person before the religion.

I have also been the victim of religious hate crimes. I have been repeatedly told I am going to burn in hell. That I am the spawn of satan. I have had my car vandalized. I have been followed into parking lots and evangelized. I have been exorcised by street preachers and online worshippers.

I do not believe that a person that believes a particular religion is insane. I do not think they are stupid. I believe that what another person believes is something vital to their identity and that neither I nor anyone else has the right to take it away from them. It is part of who they are. I will always remain available however and strong in my understanding so if they should falter I will be there to help them get back up. And if I should be able to help them find a new way I will do so. But if it is not appropriate for them I will help them back to their own path.

I believe that in seeking truth we best serve whatever the nature of the universe is. I believe that we are born ignorant and must struggle with our fellow humans to learn anything of this world.

I believe that history has shown us that sometimes religious zeal can be fanned into extremes. I know that people have died due to this. I believe that some fundimentalists are truly afraid that our society has become so corrupted that they feel something drastic has to be done. I believe that absolute belief cannot abide moral relativism and a diverse culture. I believe that stress in our society is built along these lines. I believe we need to wake up before the stress turns into something worse.

[SOteric]

87. Caution is one thing inflaming fears is another.

I'm very sorry for the horrific things that have happened to you. I've suffered no few misfortunes on account of my belief as well and I know that it can be a source of great irritation and frustration.

The film has simultaneously stirred debate among those of us on the Christian Left and those of you who are agnostic and Atheist - and it has opened some serious questions in the minds of a few Fundamentalists I know. In response to the film, the American Council of Catholic Bishops last week put out a 30 page document ellucidating current scholarly thought on the death of Christ. The film did not come out favourably in the document.

The film is sensationalism, meant to put butts in seats. The Catholics know that. The Atheists know that. The Agnostic knows that, and almost all the Christian Left is well aware.

I do not forecast packs of roving Lutherans, high on milk and looking for trouble.

You're a chess player, aren't you Az? At it's foundation the problem isn't the movie or even the potential, possible response to the movie by a few rambunctious God-thugs. The problem is the unnatural balance of power with which a bullying administration has imbued a small religious subgroup; a droplet in the sea of time, population and history. This film and the controversy surrounding it is just a showy distraction at the edge of the board. Don't get sucked in, we're on the final stretch to a checkmate.

[Az]

89. I don't believe it is a tactic

I think George and Co may make use of this film. But I do not believe that this was in any way the intent behind its being made.

This is Mel's legacy. This is his hearts work. It is his art. As such it is simply part of the flow within the ongoing dialog within society. However the net effects of this work may raise it to a higher order.

I don't believe there are going to be sudden bands of Lutherans wandering the streets picking on poor isolated atheists. I do believe that at local levels people will rise up and discard to the social contract. They will place their religious doctrine in place despite the law of the land. I believe this is already happening and that this movie may insite further excesses in this.

I worry that my rights may be stripped away. I worry that science and knowledge may be forced out of public schools. I worry that religion may be forced into the schools and any child not of the right religion may be oppressed. I worry that 200 years of progress may be reversed.

[SOteric]

91. I'm not suggesting it's a tactic.

I am suggesting that the Religious Right has been given a false sense of power and of their own importance by their belief that Dubya, the Leader of the Free World, is one of them. (Though I do believe that Rove has been using the Religious Right for his own purposes, - that's another story for another time.) Remove the figurehead, and the perception of power/powerlessness normalises once again.

You have every right to concern yourself with the disintegration of citizen rights. I concern myself with them on my own behalf as well, and on the behalf of some tribal populations I work with and of whom I have grown fond. I concern myself with the stripping away of rights of all people, regardless of belief, non-belief. Place the blame and need for correction where it belongs. The government, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Homeland Security, John Ashcroft, Tommy Ridge and a massive failure of the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the standards of justice and democracy for which this nation was once known.

I don't believe people, even Fundies, will be rising up wholesale to discard the social contract any time soon. As with all things, I watch with my eyes open and I remain open to the possibility that things will yet grow to that level. But we're not there. We're not in the neighbourhood.

The inciting hyperbole I'm being exposed to in this matter is along the line of what you're saying in this thread. I understand your fear. It's valid, but I don't support it. I don't support inciting fear of a nameless abstract group of people based on past hurts and potentialities. That's no better than what you fear they'd do to you.

Folks need to calm down about this; to de-escalate the hyperbole and wild, fear-mongering speculation.

I very much hope that there'll be no rising up even in small ways. Not only because it pains me to think of people who believe themselves followers of Christ behaving in such a manner, but because if some small amount of thuggery begins in the name of that movie either state or local agencies or the production company itself will withdraw the film from local theatres. If you think the film has power now, you do not even want to see what will happen if it gets banned from miscellaneous locations.

Gotta class, - catch you later.

[arrogantatheist1000]

115. I wish I could do that.

I will not associate with anyone who is religious. We never get along and they say I'm going to hell etc, for my beliefs.

And frankly I love having in depth discussions about all sorts of issues, and that is impossible with a believer around. I have tried many many times, but they are unwilling to have a deep discussion. It always in some way challenges some strange belief they have, and they throw a monkey wrench in the discussion, or get emotional, which is no fun.

All of my friends are atheists, and we want to keep it that way. Sometimes when new people are around they call us bigots when we discuss things openly. They always get upset and leave early during the get togethers.

Luckily I'm a very large man, and many of my friends are as well, so we debate things even in public places. We get the worst insults you have ever heard by christians, or they make angry faces and stare us down.

Last time we met was at a coffee shop, and a fundee got upset at our atheist talk, he came over and told me to shut up before he made me shut up. Unfortunately for him, I was with 5 very large men, (smallest 6'1 220 pounds), so long story short he ended up badly beaten. Hopefuly he will learn to mind his own business, and not let his emotions on ideas force him towards violence. However even though he lost most of his teeth, and the left side of his face got smashed, he won't. There is no logic in religion. It is all emotional based.

I did make the remark as I hit him, that his god didn't come to save him because his god was a coward. Which the people in the coffee shop didn't find to funny but oh well.

That is the way it is with fundees, the only way you can stop them from controlling you is by being stronger then them. I have guns and so do my friends I should add. I even have body armour. That is what it means to be an atheist, these psycho religious idiots will always try to shut you up, using whatever means neccessary.

I feel so sorry for these young teenage girls in christain towns. They are forced to submit with violence, into the silly silly puritanical beliefs their lunatic neighbours have. They get beaten and worse.

You see I happen to be very strong, I am the type that when I wasn't strong, I plot how to get stronger. Even now I am building a large militia, so we can defend ourselves even against the police.

My own mother and father have basically disowned me because I dont' believe in GAWD. I have been fired before, because I won't submit. I am uncircumsized and love my foreskin. Women get scared of me when they see it, because I'm the infidel. They tell on me.

The old order for atheism and environmentalism, was try to reason with these psycho oppressors. That was a stupid idea, you can never reason with these psychos. They don't even understand the language of force. Like that idiot in the coffee shop, he was late 40's, 6'0, 180 pounds, and he tried to shut us up. He didn't stop, until he was beaten unconcious on the ground, and blood was pouring from his mouth. Even then we had to leave in cars fast, because the police would have our heads. I didn't want to get in a gun fight with the cops yet.

Its a sick world where I need to outnumber the cops and be wearing body armour to practice freedom of speech. I don't tell religious people to shut up, or I'll make them. But its the world I'm in, so I merely adapt, and enjoy it. I just wish so many on the left weren't so non violent.

I hate watching them get forced to be silent, or imprisoned for their beliefs, and even then not turning to violence, to make sure their freedoms are protected. The founding fathers would be ashamed of americans today, not fighting to be free.

[MidwestMomma]

74. WTF....Mel has a woman playing SATAN?

Guess he really does hate woman.

Thanks Mel. The fundies already think women are the source of all evil...ie, the garden of eden.

[Forkboy]

76. Actually,though I loathe defending mel

the person is meant purposely to be asexual.If you look at the pics of the character it looks like a feminine man (minus eyebrows).

Like I said,I hate to defend him because I can't stand him (long before this even),but that was how it's meant to be.Evil isn't a man or woman.

[chiburb]

75. Roger Ebert's Review...

Snip:

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:


At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.


For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

[Az]

77. It is the violence divorced of the message

This chills me. I don't know if it worries anyone else. But I have been the target of hatred from fundimentalists. I do not need them any more insensed.

[MidwestMomma]

103. It worries me too

I mean, they're renting out theaters to see this movie. That's scary to me.....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

78. I watched his review...

on his show and was very disappointed in him. He went on a passionate rant about how this film shows us just how terribly Jesus suffered for us all for our salvation and finally, over midway through, remembered to add the caveat, of course, that was for those who were believers.

I had no clues about Roger's religious status beforehand, but I immediately knew from his words he was responding not primarily as a critic but a believer.

This is the type of fanning of religious passion that makes me nervous.

[Mari333]

85. Time for Hollywood to remake The Handmaids Tale

:bounce:

[Malva Zebrina]

95. I can go along with that

This just reminds me of another stupid Hollywood act of Charleton Heston as the hero. It is mere Holywood and Gibson is mere taking advantage.

It is really pathetic to any person who thinks and contemplates


But,let it be. IMO Gibson is a grade B, sensationalist actor with a whole lot of kids to support and things for him lately have not been making money.

[JasonBerry]

98. It's a MOVIE

Remember the TEN COMMANDMENTS? It's just a movie.

[Indiana Democrat]

99. "It depicts Jesus as the ultimate victim"

Ummmm.......He is.

[ikojo]

101. Throughout Jewish history the Catholic church

which was the ruling class in much of Europe for so long, would enact Passion Plays during Holy Week (the week during which Easter falls). This was done to incite the masses against "those Jews" who "killed" their savior.
Pogroms were encouraged and carried out with abandon. Many Jews died during "Holy Week."

THIS is why Jews are upset about the Passion according to Mel. History is difficult to forget and Jews have a better historical memory than most Americans. It's the same ole Passion play that was used as justification for murdering Jews in Europe less than 100 years ago.

Go here and read dvdtalk.com's review of the Passion http://www.dvdtalk.com/aisleview/

[methinks2]

104. good grief, it's just a movie

seeing this movie is optional. No one forces you to see it!!
People who are easily swayed by this type of movie would be easily swayed by pokeman cartoons. Ignore them Chicken Little.

[shugah]

112. there has always been religious war

mel gibson and his opus dei gospels movie is the same as any "passion play" designed throughout history. too bad mel has all the state-of-the-art enhancing abilities at hand. i think most folk will find this movie too much for the kids. the early veiwing has people walking out because they don't want to watch.

i understand your concern Az, but i think this movie might be way too much, and that even christians will wonder who is making money off of all this violence and bloodlust.

the religious right go mad? they did that a long time ago! "moral majority" indeed! *snort*