posted
Okay kat, I’ll try again – the Christian church does not have a long history of condoning adultery. Thus I don’t feel a great need to clarify our position on it. The Christian church does have a long history of condoning anti-semitism. Thus I do think that those of us who don’t condone it, as Christians, have a responsibility to make it very clear that we DON’T condone it. If it is even remotely possible that this movie will be used as a tool by anti-semetic people we have a responsibility to be proactive in countering that use of it.
Of course I’ve heard all those justifications for adultery that you list. What I’ve never heard is someone suggest that church teachings support or encourage them. I’ve heard people say that Christian teachings on adultery are outdated or irrelevant, but never that they encourage it.
Note again, I am not condemning the movie. I’ve been anticipating it since I first heard about it (although I’m bummed about the subtitles) and I hope to enjoy it very much.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I'm confused Ayelar. Kat said that one movie would cause adultery and you said she was comparing adultery to widespread, systematic murder.
*thinks* Because I think Mel Gibson IS being attacked for his religion. Now, that's almost inevitable - he made the movie because of it, and he's very open about it. It's like the answer to why the irritating increase of bad taste and blasphemous Mormon jokes - because visibility brings vulnerability.
But it doesn't mean that attacking him or his products because of his religion is okay, and I suspect that there will be a great outcry against this one particular movie, and then business will go back to usual for everything else, and that isn't fair.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thus I don’t feel a great need to clarify our position on it. The Christian church does have a long history of condoning anti-semitism. Thus I do think that those of us who don’t condone it, as Christians, have a responsibility to make it very clear that we DON’T condone it. If it is even remotely possible that this movie will be used as a tool by anti-semetic people we have a responsibility to be proactive in countering that use of it.
I wonder...I wonder where this came from? Because it really, really is completely against the teachings of Christ. Somehow it got wrapped up in tradition, and while I appreciate that some serious corruption crept in when the Christian church held secular power as well as religious, I wonder how that became so entwined.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
As far as Gibson's religion and/or beliefs (about the Holocaust or anything else) go, they concern me only in as much as they indicate a possible bias. And they don't concern me much. I repeat, I don't think he or the movie is anti-semitic. I am not asking for the movie to be changed.
I am asking for Christians to say something along the lines of, "I hear your concerns, and this is what I think should be done to ensure that they are NOT actualized."
I have heard this from many IRL, I'm hearing it from dkw, Bok, AJ, Dan and others.
posted
(Heh. Sorry about the musical edits. *sheepish*)
Okay. I think... my incredulity comes from a slight disbelief still that anyone COULD actually think to justify widespread violence based on this. That's probably coming from the same place in my head that concluded that Hitler was simply crazy and the people who supported him were deathly afraid of him and mostly ignorant, because anything else is inconcievable.
quote:I am asking for Christians to say something along the lines of, "I hear your concerns, and this is what I think should be done to ensure that they are NOT actualized."
I have heard this from many IRL, I'm hearing it from dkw, Bok, AJ, Dan and others.
Am I really asking so much?
What you said here really sums it up, rivka. We are concerned about possible repercussions. For some reason, some on this forum see these concerns as an attack on the Christian religion.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the disclaimer goes, I can see how putting one in would dilute the movie.
If you add a disclaimer at the beginning, everything in the movie is interpreted a little differently because that disclaimer was there.
In most movies, that wouldn't matter. This movie is focusing on the suffering of Christ and its meaning in Christianity. The moview has subtitles and has been crafted to create a particular emotional response.
posted
If you're pushing disclaimers on someone else's work, it means what them to deny it, even just a little. I can understand not wanting to do that. I actually think disclaimers at the beginning denying the following message are a cop out. It's a way of saying something controversial without being willing to take responsibility for the consequences.
See my above post.
Added: Which is unfair. I'll take it down if you want me to, dkw.
posted
It's probably worth pointing out that many Scots site Braveheart in reference to recent Scottish independance, and statues of William Wallace erected by their self-governing body since then have strongly resembled Mel Gibson.
These things DO affect people.
Nobody HERE is going to go all glassy-eyed and start spewing hate. But not everyone is as stable as we might assume.
I mean, you've probably heard the story about the black kids who saw Mississippi Burning and then went out and beat the first white kid they say to death. There are similar stories where people killed people in ways shown in movies, etc. These movies that deal with huge injustices can cause backlash.
I just don't think this is one of them, really. I hope I'm right. It just seems so stupid to think that people would use the story of the death of Christ as an excuse to attack Jews. It blows my mind that so much of Christian history proves that people DID. I mean, HELLO-- Jesus was also a Jew. We worship one Jew and then persecute all the others? It's crazy.
But it happened, which is why I sympathize with Jewish concerns.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well why not the End then? Nobody stays to watch the credits but at least it is there.
They already have a bunch of disclaimers flashed up about duplication etc anyway.
I mean considering you get a packet of disclaimers on a $10 pocket calculator, why not put disclaimers on a movie?
They also have the one at the end about "All events places and names used are ficticious any resemblance to any persons living or dead is purely coincidental." I guess they can't put that one on this movie though!
posted
Is media the loaded gun in the house, then?
I mean, is it safe to let people tell stories like that? Without holding them responsible for the consequences?
----
Actually, at the end would be fine. It doesn't distract from the movie.
Heh. Although I doubt the "The people and events in this movie are fictional. Any resembles to real people is coincidental." diclaimer is going to be there.
posted
Actually, I've seen that "fictional" disclaimer on 'true stories' too. I think it may very well be there.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think because so many of us are stubborn and opinionated here on hatrack we forget how easily influenced and gullible people are.
My little brother convinced other college students that magnets don't work underwater. And these people are supposed to be among the educated elite.
Of course, the person that actually performs the action should be held responsible for their crime. However many people are easily influenced by things that we, here at hatrack wouldn't dream of being influenced by.
posted
OSC-Fan, I am surprised you got away with this:
quote: 1) Those people who claim they don't believe in Jesus know, in their hearts, that the story of Jesus is true and they are bothered by it....
That sense of self-righteousness can lead to anti-semitic behavior.
You are claiming that, because Jesus rings in your heart as true, then it must in everyones.
It doesn't.
Your entire argument is centered on that belief, a deep committed heartfelt belief that totally denies the beliefs and heart felt convictions of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, Aethists, and even Agnostics. Basically you are right and the majority of the world is wrong.
Others who feel likewise may take it a step forward. Jews know that the story of Jesus is true, yet they do not convert? They must be evil. Generations of children are being brought up under this evil. We must force them to convert now!
Kat:
There are very few churches who have gathered groups of believers to attend Mystic River or Unfaithful. When family groups complain about Unfaithful, large numbers of Church leaders, the people who hope to encourage our morality, did not show up to defend it. When police and law & order groups protested Mystic River, no church leadership stood behind the director and defended it.
One of the most powerful words in the English language is All.
In this debate, when one Jewish organization or leader questioned the movie, they feared some fanatics will revert to their anti-semitic roots.
The accusation was put out that "All the Jews hate this movie. They ALL fear that ALL Christians will start anti-semetic pogroms."
When one Christian organization or leader brought up that accusation, the report read "ALL the Jews are attacking ALL of our Christian story. All Christians must see this movie to stop ALL of the Jews from doing this."
Hey, Folks. Drop the ALL.
Some people have a problem with the movie and the director. Some don't. SOme on each side are Jewish. Some on each side are Christian. Some on each side are neither.
The only way that anti-semiticism can really take hold for long, not counting the fringe lunatics, is if we keep polarizing this movie.
quote:There are very few churches who have gathered groups of believers to attend Mystic River or Unfaithful.
But Dan, I don't consider churches to be the source of evil or the only source of...societal sanction. The concern seems to be not only that people will get dumb ideas, but that the micro-society they belong to will say it's okay. But people gather to watch movies together by definition, and societal sanction comes from many places. We shouldn't worry about their actions?
---
I have to admit, you're one of the people who blasted the movie by calling Mel Gibson's religion a cult. Why on earth is that relevant? How is that not intolerant?
I don't think the movie is antisemetic as far as I can tell.
I am worried, however, that it may illicit that behavior in many "Christians" out there.
That's because my personal belief is that the Jews get it from everyone. I think the whole world is getting more antisemetic now, and it's just getting worse.
So if people out there want to hurt Jews, what better thing to use than an apparently "impassioned" moment caused by the movie? A moment of insanity, if you will?
I think it may cause people to do something that they really wanted to do anyway.
I think it's terrible, but if I were Jewish, I think I'd be worried for my family.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh...dumb question, but why do we have 5 pages of debate over a movie none of us have even seen yet?
I got really mad at an acquaintance who stated during a Bible study that Harry Potter was evil and she wouldn't have anything to do with the movies or the books. I argued that she was going on hearsay, and biased hearsay at that -- and that she was an adult and could probably survive finding out for herself before making blanket statements about the evilness of something.
This is striking me as the same thing.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I laughed when I saw your response, rivka, and then realized that you probably weren't joking.
I'd be happy to bet you a nice lunch out that there will be less violent fallout from The Passion of The Christ than there was from Jackass the Movie. Speaking of lunch out, rivka, what part of CA are you in? I have to work in the Bay Area for several weeks over the next couple of months. It would be wonderful to get to meet you.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sad* I'm not joking. The rabbi whose class I'm about to be late for HAS seen it, and is quite concerned.
He does not tend to be someone (IMO and experience) who overreacts -- quite the contrary. As I mentioned, he is working with a group of other concerned individuals to prevent problems.
I would LOVE to meet you, jeniwren. But I'm allll the way down in Los Angeles. A bit of a drive from the Bay Area. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to echo dkw here. I'd like to believe with Belle's statement that the vast majority of Christians aren't anti-semitic. However, I can't. The facts don't agree with that statement. That's not even true for American, let alone for all the other parts of the world.
I'll go on record again as saying that I think the world would be a much better place if even a quarter of the people who call themselves Christians were actually followers of Jesus' message. However, history and social science disagree with this. Christian has never been synomous with "good guy" and in the past (especially if you were Jewish) often was a pretty good idicator of the opposite.
I'm bothered by many of the attitudes displayed here. For example, people putting their fellowship with other people who call themselves Christians over her fellowship with all people. Definitely un-Christian. People have been very quick to say that the main reason people are concerned about the effects of this movie is because they want to attack the religion of the movie. I can't tell you how often in history attacks on the relatively helpless Jews were justified as defense against all the evil things that Jews did or were going to do. I'm also concerned by people's view of Christians in history (such as the Christian majority population of Nazi Germany) as being either evil or following twisted doctrine without any genuine interest in why they did so or any concern that they or their co-religionists might be having the same problems now. Also, as always, I'm concerned by how ignorant even the population of Hatrack is about their religion and it's history.
Many of the people who criticize Christianity aren't evil hedonists bent on destroying the religion. Quite of few of them are Christians themselves. Criticism of Christianity has been instrumental in forming the world we live in now, where, for example, burning down a Jewish village while killing and raping it's inhabitants is frowned upon. The principles and the people who fought for them were almost always at least outside the mainstream of Christianity and in many cases directly opposed to the current interpretation of Christianity.
I think that it's important to acknowldge that people's worldview is probably the most important determiner of how they act. I completely disagree with the people who seek to absolve a worldview, such as Christianity, from it's determining effects on it's adherents behavior. There are reasons why people act the way they do, and many times these reasons can be directly related to how they see the world. They don't just do things becuse they want to. Their very wants and the way they go about fulfilling them is largley determined by what they believe. Much of the current criticisms about religion comes from teasing out the effects of different aspects of worldviews (often initially studied without reference to religion) and then applying these finding to religious beliefs. I put a bit of effort into trying to show this in a thread about Religion and Prejudice.
Of course, if you see me as just a Christianity hater as opposed to someone who is genuinely concerned with both integrity and about making the world a better place, nothing I say is going to have any effect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People have been very quick to say that the main reason people are concerned about the effects of this movie is because they want to attack the religion of the movie. I can't tell you how often in history attacks on the relatively helpless Jews were justified as defense against all the evil things that Jews did or were going to do.
Squick, I'm one of the people who said this, and I still hold it is true. Your answer doesn't refute it - it provides examples that it has happened before, just on a different side. That's evidence for the argument.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think there's going to be a sudden increase in violence in Canada (the only culture I can even claim to understand, so it's the only one I'll talk about). I just don't see people being convinced by this movie to go out and do violence and I think people willing to do violence would find another convenient excuse if this movie wasn't around. I do, however, trust the media to report on any and every act of anti-Semitism that occurs following the movie and quite happily say that it's because of the movie and spark all kinds of heated argument about the movie and, in general, accomplish nothing but provide a public forum for people to grind their respective axes and generally increase their feeling of moral superiority. Ahhh, I can hardly wait.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat I don't think churches are evil either.
Far from it.
Except in a few extreme cases, and everything I've read makes the sect that Gibson follows border on that.
Churches are supposed to guide us to being better people.
The question is, does telling Christ's story in this form make people better or worse.
If it makes them better Christians, then most people in society, even those not Christian, will agree that it makes them better people.
The hope of many evangelicals is that it will make more Christians. It will bring in a lot more people to sit in the pews and donate to the church and vote as the politico's in the church wan them to vote. How many of them will stay to listen to the message is unknown.
Yet if even a few stay, even one soul is saved, then the movie is a success, to the evangelical eyes.
However, the fear is that it will also create some worse Christians. Those who will get fired up by this movie to hurt others not of their faith.
All that the proponents to this film are asking for is some kind of assurance that steps will be taken to limit the latter. We have a situation where we are risking an unknown amount of violence to evangelize an unknown number of souls.
I have no problem with this movie. I do have problems with Mr. Gibson, based on the religious sect he adhere's to. I find it narrow-minded and self-righteous. However, that is a personal opinion.
I do have a few problems with the arguments used throughout this thread. That is whom I am posting too.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, my pastor has seen it also, and also not one to over-react or for that matter issue endorsements, he said he couldn't see how it could possibly be considered anti-semetic. I'm reserving judgement until I see it. My only speculation is that it will have less violent fallout than Jackass the Movie.
Bummer about lunch. The customer I'm going to work for has an office in LA....if they send me down to train their LA people (a possibility that hasn't come up in discussion yet, though I'll ask), I'll email you and see if we can get together. I would love to get to meet you.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no problem with this movie. I do have problems with Mr. Gibson, based on the religious sect he adhere's to. I find it narrow-minded and self-righteous. However, that is a personal opinion.
Dan, I'd be careful about judging a person based on his religion when your knowledge comes from ... unsympathetic sources.
----
Taal, jeez, that would be perfect.
rivka, Ela: Would that work?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do NOT THINK THE MOVIE ITSELF IS ANTI-SEMITIC. I think it IS intended to inflame emotions. The concern is where that emotional fervor will go, if it is not carefully channeled.
We cannot do that; we can only ask that YOU do.
On page 1, Belle said:
quote: Do you know what Christian teaching is about who is responsible for putting Jesus on that cross?
Me. I am. And every other sinner. And that is what Gibson said he tried to portray, and it's also why he made a cameo appearance - it's his hand that pounds in the nails.
I respectfully ask that THAT is the message that is emphasized.
kat, it surely would (it seems to me) not hurt, and it might be very helpful. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, if you see me as just a Christianity hater as opposed to someone who is genuinely concerned with both integrity and about making the world a better place, nothing I say is going to have any effect.
Of course, if you see people who don't agree with your points or seek clarification merely as people who see you as just a Christianity hater, then nothing you say is going to have an effect either, because people will doubt your motives.
Frankly, this continual line of reasoning would be more understandable if you raised it about anyone other than Christians on the board.
Dagonee P.S., I responded in the Charming Bigots thread...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
According to my understanding, you are asking that in discussions anyone may have, the emotions this movie and subsequent discussions arouse be of the soul-searching, penitent kind and not the "Go Team, Fight!" kind?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One point that I forgot to bring up above is that violence doesn't have to be physical. I say that in our current society, social controls have made it very likely that the majority of violence is going to take a form other than blatant physical attacks.
Dagonee, I have confidence in my own integrity. I'm pretty sure that I don't dismiss people jsut because they disagree with me. As I told one Hatrack MIA that I fundamentally disagree about on religious issues but still have a healthy respect for, I don't give my respect out free in a crackerjack box, but I do give it out. You can generally tell the people that I respect, because I'm willing to spend time having a dialouge with them.
As to bringing it up with groups other than Christians, I have. Not only have I brought this issue up in regards to other topics, but every time I talk about it in regards to Christianity, I'm also targetting the critics of Christianity.
P.S. I responded to you response.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another dumb question then...is it really that seriously in jeopardy? With ticket sales having already started?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Been thinking about this, kat. Starting when you said questioning the movie because of his religion is an ad homenim attack.
I think it is on that grey line between public and private lives. When someone runs for office there is still the debate on what is important. Some people couldn't care less about that person's sex life, other people view it as a measure of integrity. I think the same can be said for the religion of the person. Because the perspectives and world view of one's religon (or lack of religion) does effect one's thought processes.
When you make a very public statement on a religious topic (like the life of Christ) you can expect your religious background to be scrutined as part of your personal life, even as in politicians. I mean we would want Lieberman to be able to be President on the Sabbath if a crisis broke out and stuff like that needs to be taken into account beforehand.
So I don't know think that it is irrelevant, but I do think it should be handled with sensitivity.
(Incidentally all of the information I got about Mel's sect came from their own website. There is a horribly boring history section that goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I repeat, I don't think he or the movie is anti-semitic. I am not asking for the movie to be changed.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dan_Raven![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
