*thinks* It is a fine line; I'm not sure how to handle it. Putting yourself out publicly IS relinquishing your right to some of your privacy. It could be argued that Mel talks about his religion in the promotion for the movie, so it's up for grabs. For politicians, it could be argued that the moment they proclaim their character as a selling point, their character is subject to scrutiny.
It's like the pre-marital sex thread; if your personal life is used as evidence, then that life is up to the tests of evidence. Incidentally, this theory was formed about two years ago, and has been codified as Kat Rule of Life #4:Do not discuss love life on Hatrack.
I still think that attacking Mel's religion is ad hominem and beside the point, but it isn't an unfair invasion of privacy. I mean, I get buffetted a lot more here than I would if I never said anything controversial, but I'm willing to take the risk. I still don't like it, though. *thinks*
posted
but kat if it influences his world view and how he directed the movie, even unconsciously how is questioning it ad hominem? It is based on the facts of the religion itself not in feelings at least to me.
posted
A religious movie that intends to make some sort of a religious statment, that he directed and oversaw.
I know you care a great deal about the integrity of the person in the First Presidency, because they are making statments on behalf of God for your religion.
By making a "multi-denominational" religious movie, Mel puts himself under that same microscope.
posted
This is the other reason I don't usually post on issue threads. People don't usually respond to anything I say, and I wonder if it's because they a). didn't read it, b). agree with me completely, or c). are so shocked and appalled that they ignore me as a troll. Though I guess "d). my statements are so wishy washy washy as to be pointless" is also a possibility.
I just want to make sure that rivka and Ela and the other Jewish Hatrackers know that I have the utmost respect for them as people of faith and, well, as people.
Oh, and kat... you weren't asking for a picture from me, were you? My snappies suck.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, thanks for bringing up the William Wallace thing. I didn’t know that the statues being put up bore a resemblance to Mel Gibson, but I think that could only improve the aesthetics of public squares.
I’d suggest we get one around here, if there were any Scottish ancestry in this town. Perhaps Mel will play a Norwegian folk hero someday? Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Banna, I don't think so. He's not declaring himself a prophet; he made a movie. If people are worried about the movie, his personal life is beside the point.
And I have to tell you, I don't mean Hatrack, but the tumult from Hollywood is sickeningly hypocritical. People couldn't stop clapping for The Pianist - a movie made by the rapist of a 12-year-old girl running from accountability - but they are up in arms because Mel loves his wife, considers her an amazing person, is faithful to her, but suspects she's going to hell.
posted
Why is America more afraid of anti-semitism than it is afraid of an equivalent hatred of Muslims that could have much more easily been provoked by many of the things that have been shown on TV in the past few years?
Actually, I know why - but that doesn't change the fact that we should be equally concerned about both, don't you think?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-Fan I believe you are getting a bit over heated in this.
First, no one I've read here or elsewhere has suggested the movie be banned, stopped, or not distributed.
The requests those complaining about the movie have asked for warnings or subtle changes made to tone down the possible evil Jew image.
Only those stampeding for its defence have mentioned boycott or stopping its distribution, and then its their reason for opposing those who they see as opposing the movie.
(Early distribution problems were financial, not religious. Nobody thought a religous movie, in Aramaic with sub-titles, would sell).
Secondly, your labeling people--Liberals and Aetheists. I find that disturbing. I read into it a suggestion that you think there was a great Liberal club and an Aetheist church where everyone who was liberal or Aethiest went and agreed on strategy.
I read it as if you were listing Christian enemies to be overcome.
Its easy to label a bunch of nameless people. Once labeled its easy to attack them, either on this forum, or for some, with a stick in the streets. After all, they are only Atheists and Liberals.
or they are only Christians.
or they are only Jews.
Finally, the hollywood critics have not chimed in on this movie. They want to see it first.
posted
Kat, I had a bad analogy in a way. None of the leaders of other (legitimate) Protestant churches actually claim to have living prophets. Many don't have one single "leader" either. But the ones that do, have lives that are subject to constant scrutiny.
I guess to me it is because religions are statements on "ways you live your life" so it is only natural to check the life and see if it is lived accordingly.
I do see the hypocrisy in Hollywood and would not deny that one iota.
quote:I guess to me it is because religions are statements on "ways you live your life" so it is only natural to check the life and see if it is lived accordingly.
On this, I completely agree. Part of the reason I love my church is because of the examples of the leaders.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
look at the first post that I posted under this user name, and when I switched to it on this thread.
I guess it was too subtle a tribute because no one noticed. (I don't believe in doing landmarks until I get around to them, which may be never, so it isn't landmark avoidance)
posted
I'm a Christian....but not really a practicing one. I also grew up in the relatively secular (....and heavily Jewish) suburbs of Philadelphia.
I honestly want to see this movie, mostly because I really want to know what happened....without having to read the Bible
But the violence....the violence might deter me from seeing it. I got through Saving Private Ryan okay, but that was mostly machine violence.....I had to walk out of Cold Mountain because there was so much human violence.
Honestly...movies can be pretty powerful. I agree with Belle in that I don't think it's fair to assume all Christians are anti-Semitic. But I also agree with rivka in that we have to be very, very careful about the ones who are. One thing that springs to my mind is Pearl Harbor. When I watched the bombs falling on the ships in Pearl Harbor, and they showed American men drowning in sinking ships they couldn't escape, I looked at the red circles on the side of those planes and I understood racism. I understood where it came from, and how people could possibly feel that way. I hadn't before -- I had always universally (correctly) condemned it. But what if my grandfather had been in one of those ships? Or my son?
This whole thing terrified me. I grew up in a culture of securlarism and I was taught from a very young age that racism is wrong. And I still believe that, very strongly. But I have to keep that belief strongly in the front of my head to prevent my subconsious, emotional instincts from infringing on it.
Now I live in a big city where there is a pretty clear divide between black and white. If I'm walking on the street at night, I am inevitably more afraid of the black man than the white. That's an instance of racism that I have to force myself to be very self-consious about, because I can never let myself act in away that might hurt or discriminate against someone because of it.
My point, I guess, is that racism (or anti-Semitism) is subconsious and, above all, emotional. A scene in a movie can trigger a visceral reaction that might never have arisen under other circumstances.
What we need to do is help people approach this film in a measured, thoughtful way. Christian churches need to talk about past instances of anti-Semitism and the emotion behind it, and they need to make sure that their congregations understand how that emotion was misplaced.
When I first heard about protests against this movie, I was firmly in Belle's camp -- free speech, no one should tell Mr. Gibson what he should and should not publish. Now, though, I'm more than a little bit concerned.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why I feel like the discussion is an attack on Christians.
Because without any evidence that anything has or will happen as a result of this movie, we have people saying things like Rivka that she expects people to beat up kids on the street and attack Jewish businesses and for people to go attack their neighbors.
Now, why would anybody do that? Because they feel so passionately about the movie and their emotion turns to anger at the Jews that are portrayed as the "villains" in the story, have I got that right?
Can you honestly tell me it isn't insulting to a large group of people, namely Christians? Because only Christians would feel that way, an athiest who doesn't believe Christ was God is not going to be upset at anyone.
Before the movie has been released we've had people decrying it as anti-semitic, calling for scenes to be deleted (and Gibson did delete one, though I admire him saying it wasn't because it was anti-Semitic but rather that time didn't permit explaining the quote in context), and calling for disclaimers. Calling for Christian leaders to urge their people not to do things that no one yet has done
People are not just expressing "concern" they are calling for changes to be made and for people to take action, and attacking Gibson not only for his beliefs, but the beliefs of his father and he's never acknowledged that he believed the same things his father does!
As for a disclaimer - Gibson answered that question. Putting a disclaimer would indicate there is something wrong with his movie, and he doesn't believe there is.
Could you not see that putting a disclaimer in front of the movie could encourage people to then view the movie through eyes that are now looking for reasons to hate the Jewish people? I think it would do more harm than good, by calling attention to something that I just don't think is going to be a big issue with folks.
And I'm wondering, is anti-semitism just not prevalent in the south? Because I live in the bible belt, I am around die-hard southern baptists, presbyterians, and other denominations every day. I have never seen one incidence of violent or hateful behavior toward a jew.
In fact, I know several dyed in the wool southern baptist conservative evangelicals who take aerobics at the Jewish Community Center right alongside their Jewish neighbors, and eat lunch with them and shop with them and let their kids play together. Hardly the environment such seething hatred of all people jewish is going to crop up in, dontcha think?
I am angry about it, because everyone here keeps referring to some invisible stereotypical Christian who does nothing but sit around waiting for any excuse to come along so he can bomb an abortion clinic before noon and beat up some black people and jews before supper. Now, if that person exists, I haven't ever met them.
Yes people have blown up abortion clinics, yes people have attacked Jews with hatred in their hearts but they are hardly common. I think one is more likely to be mugged for money in America than attacked by someone solely because they're Jewish, and as Olivet tried to point out - anyone who would do such a thing after seeing this movie would have done it before seeing it too.
So yeah, I'm taking it personally. I think it's an insult aimed at the millions of people who share my beliefs who would never, never consider doing such things to constantly demand we reassure everyone we aren't going to do them.
It's the equivalent of me saying to a muslim American "Before I do business with you, I want you to reassure me that you don't intend to murder me because you think I'm an infidel." And then if he takes offense and doesn't answer I can label him a bigot who hates Christian Americans.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: “In spring of 2002, just one year ago, we witnessed a striking upsurge of anti-Semitism in many European countries. These incidents included attacks on synagogues, the desecration of cemeteries, and physical assaults on people who appeared to be Jewish,” Smith said.
“Unfortunately U.S. statistics on anti-Semitism present an equally disturbing picture. The number of incidents in the U.S. increased by 8 percent in 2002 to 1,559 according to the ADL. Sadly, my own home state of New Jersey counted 171 incidents,” he added.
Do you know what would make me really, really happy? If, after the movie comes out, there is a significant drop in anti-semitic violence -- or even no change, and a drop in violence overall. I think that would be WONDERFUL! I don't want to be RIGHT on this! Please, please, please prove me wrong! Prove my fears irrational and unfounded!
I promise to say thank you. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You take offense when people show their worries that the lunatic fringe who claim to be Christian will use this movie as a rallying point to push their hate filled messages.
Should they ignore these fears?
Should they just assume that nothing bad can or will happen? Should they assume that all the bad things that happened in the past won't happen again?
They know and admit that the movie will not create mass violence. It may, unfortunately, direct the violence some are capable of, to a specific target.
What will happen to the Christian community if something should happen?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dan, I'd turn that around. If the movie isn't anti-semetic, then what should Gibson do with regards to this issue before the movie is released?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there another example in history of a Christ-centered movie coming out, followed by a barrage of attacks on Jews across America? I mean, it's not like the story has changed over the years. Is there anything that someone can point to?
I'm much more afraid of the paranoid and prejudice-filled attitudes that pervade all segments of our population, who leap instantly to their own defense, even when they are not attacked, as though all the world was an enemy. I'm not talking about Jews in particular, here, since of all people, they have good historical reasons to be skeptical. But it seems to be an increasing problem in this country, and this situation isn't exactly helping.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a Study Guide for the movie put out by the National Council of Churches’ Interfaith Relations Committee. I think I will be using it as part of post-movie discussion groups.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think you missed a large part of my point. Revenge motivation is unequivocly un-christian. You can claim that revenge is justifed, but it can never be christian. It can however be a big part of being CHRISTIAN. I'd even say it's even one of the main parts of it.
I don't think that anyone is really worried about christians becoming more violent in deed or at least thought towards jews, but we're damn sure worried about this from CHRISTIANS. And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Back that up please. Just because the obnoxious people get all the press coverage does not mean there aren’t more people quietly going about their daily lives trying to live out their faith and make the world a more loving place.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ironic thing is that objections to the movie by Jews is causing anger toward Jews far more than the movie seems to be. In some ways I believe that the Jews are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You have to understand that attacking this movie is really attacking the core beliefs of Christians of most stripes. So far of what I know of the movie, Jews are not just attacking a portrayal of Jesus; but the very Scriptures themselves as that is what the Movie is based upon. It is as if the Jews are asking for Christians to sanitize or condemn a part of their heritage and faith. THAT is what is really getting so many people riled up by the Jews insistance that something is wrong with this film -- including Mormons who typically feel they are spiritually connected to the Jewish people.
You might have a few "secularized" Christians who are on the Jews side on this, but they do not represent the mainstream view of the story of Jesus and his death or resurrection. In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
I am not willing to stipulate to that. A movie is always an adaptation. Even if all the dialogue is directly out of the scripture, there are still many directorial and interpretive choices to be made. The movie is one man’s interpretation of a part of Christian scripture. That in no way makes it synonymous with Christianity as a whole.
And I don’t think anyone who knows me would call me a “secularized” Christian, but I am on Rivka and Ela’s side in this discussion, insofar as I sympathize with their concerns and share some of their fears.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve and I discussed this over dinner last night. He basically took the "Well it was made with private money so if you don't like it don't watch it" stance. I pointed out that Mel G. was looking for sanction from religious leaders other than his own. And was wanting to have his cake and eat it too as it were. He didn't think Mel should really have been looking for that approval, or shouldn't have been upset when he didn't get it from everyone.
The clincher for him changing his opinion was when I brought up the number of people going, "Well it can't happen here", when referring to pogroms and the like. He nearly choked on his soup at that point and said, "Yeah and that was what they were saying in Germany in the 1930s too. Of COURSE it can happen here!"
posted
I've read some of the reviews from those who have seen the movie.
I feel very assured that the controversey will dissapear once people can actually see this movie. It's supposed to be amazing, and the stunned response from those who have seen it is not a riotous call to arms, but a note of respect.
I think it's going to be fine. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think the heart of the Christian complaints about how the movie is treated can be seen in this quote:
quote:I keep getting the feeling that Gibson, in his real life role as an early Christian, wants to be whipped and hung on a cross so he, too, can be a martyr like Jesus. Well Mel, first you would have to study the laws of Torah and become wholly Jewish like Jesus. Then you have to adopt the role of a charismatic Jew, preaching to his people to follow the laws of Torah as given to the Jewish people by G-d through Moses. Only then could you volunteer to be one of the Jewish crucifixion victims.
Mel, I am sure that once you became an authentic Jew, the Church of Rome would be glad to hang you on a tree trunk or - at least - go to Home Depot for a neatly trimmed Post and Post Hole Digger.
This is a rabble-rousing film by Gibson, sure to exacerbate violent anti-Semitism. When (not if) synagogues are torched and Jews assaulted due to Gibson's incitement, dust off the law books and sue Gibson, the film distributors, theaters and all connected with this Hollywood travesty.(emphasis added)
posted
Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
Occasional, becareful of placing this movie on too high a pedestal, especially before you've seen it. "If you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie, you have a problem with Christianity" places this movie alongside the bible as sacred. It aint. If I think the acting is bad or the lighting is off, that doesn't mean I think that Christianity has problems.
On the bigger picture, the scene that is causing the concern is where a pronoucement is made that the Jews attending Christ's trial accept the responsibility for his death. The responsibility falls on them and their children.
To some Christians this means that those present were legally responsible for Christ's death.
To others, this means that all Jews are now, and will forever be held responsible for Christ's death.
While every Christian church I've heard of now denounces that second opinion, it is still out there in the public, and may be picked up on by those who have little understanding about Christianity.
A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
Oh, and while there have been few Passion movies, and few Pogroms in the US after those movies (the early films of the 30's had some of each, but the records of such anti-semetic behavior were rarely kept) there is a long history of such violence occuring after Passion plays.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
I agree, but we probably disagree as to what would constitute open and understanding.
quote:The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
The ADL opened the issue by asking to see the film and possibly suggest changes based on their fears of anti-Semitism. They have problems with the way the events are presented – in other words they want Gibson to make changes to his portrayal of the central story of his faith. The following quotes are from the ADL and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" FAQ:
“We have repeatedly tried to reach out to discuss this with Mr. Gibson. ADL continues to hope that Icon Productions will respond positively to our numerous requests to work constructively with Mr. Gibson to ensure a responsible and accurate film.”
“We were saddened and pained to find that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.”
“The core issues are whether the movie inaccurately and unjustly portrays Jews as evil, responsible for the crucifixion, and whether such a depiction will re-stimulate old anti-Semitic stereotypes and hatred. The division is between those who want to prevent possible anti-Semitism and prejudice from occurring and those who seem callous to the dangers that the movie may cause.”
These quotes suggest that the ADL is asking for editorial input into the film. I have a hard time faulting a director for saying, “No, I’m not going to allow an outside organization to have that kind of input in my film.” I also resent the implication that not wanting people who hold the central tenets of Christianity to be false to have input into the film are “callous to the dangers” of anti-Semitism. They may just want to make a film about their own religion without input from people not of their religion.
quote:It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
It would have been nice. But given the attitude expressed here (that the contents of the film itself is in some way objectionable), I’d be hesitant to give them more ammunition in advance.
quote:A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I don’t think most people think this, which is why I hesitated to get involved in this discussion.
quote:I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
I’m sad about it, too. It’s also a shame that some of the feeling of being threatened (not physically) is justified. On this forum alone, where tolerance is generally much greater than elsewhere, non-Christians have called for changes to some core Christian doctrine in the name of abolishing bigotry. I hear anti-Catholic diatribes weekly (some from Protestants, most from non-Christians). I don’t fear for my physical safety in most cases, so I’m better off than many. But there is a growing sense that religion is “inappropriate” somehow.
The things that “threaten” Christians in this country are those things that tend to suggest a Christian should compromise their faith somehow to be acceptable. As I’ve argued before, this sense is the heart of much Christian objection to homosexual civil unions (more accurately, objections to the arguments articulated to support homosexual civil unions). Same thing applies here, because the sense is that non-Christians want a say in how the Christian faith is presented.
Dagonee P.S., I agree with you that raising this film up to any kind of coeval status with scripture is not a good idea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I know that Belle and OSC-Fan and others have been trying to get the same point across, but I think I finally get it.
This is a Christian movie.
It tells THE Christian story.
The fact that others, non-Christians mostly, are asking to change it is a threat to your freedom to believe as you see fit, for it is a direct attack on Mel Gibson to demonstrate his religion as he sees it.
Nobody is saying that he, or anyone, could demonstrate thier beliefs in a way that will cause violence.
However, true Christians will not leap to violence because of this movie. It is argued that nobody will, or that those people who may leap to violence will have been violent anyway, and may wrongly use this movie as a justification, possibly.
Still, the question I am left with:
Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if Mel is telling the truth? That there is no blame cast, and the movie portrays the experience with power and love?
Will you hold him responsible for what idiots think? Ender's Game casts Ender as a hero, and he manages to beat two boys to death before the age of 14. Is OSC responsible for kids who think it's cool to END the teasing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering whether Hatrack went through the same kind of debate clear back at "Y2K" time --
"what MIGHT happen, and what might NOT happen"
I wonder if there are any threads from back that far?
But I'm not a "Miss Cleo" -- I can't see the future. I don't know whether this will cause action against the Jews or not -- I certainly hope not, and as a Christian, I would be horrified at any action people take against each other.
But there are also sick people out there that do things I can't comprehend. Just looking for an excuse to do them. Would changing the movie really change those people?
So that is why there is no one that can yet say what the reaction will be -- good or bad.
I'm personally not to concerned about what Mel Gibson's personal beliefs are. I don't like the beliefs of Kirstie Alley and some others, but I watch their shows.....
quote:Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Short answer is anyone who feels the need to hide their faith due the threat of physical violence is suffering a greater threat than someone being pressured to change his faith in other ways. Hands down, no question on that one.
I'm confused on the first part of the question. If you mean having non-believers request that he edit it down, I don't see the mere request as a "threat" because Gibson is resisting the notion. My worry would be that Christians start altering their message in response to such pressure. In this sense, the threat is an internal response to external pressure, not an external threat. But the sense of feeling “threatened” and needing to stand fast is just as real.
Watered down religion seems very, very dangerous to me – in some ways more dangerous than non-violent fundamentalism. By this I mean altering or merely deemphasizing “difficult” doctrines in order to make the religion more palatable to non-believers. This can happen as a response to such pressures as I discussed earlier, which I see as resulting from lack of resolve, or from a desire to make proselytizing easier, which I see as resulting from a lack of conviction.
By this I don’t mean listening to other people’s difficulties with the religion and taking these difficulties into account when sharing your faith. For example, suppose a Protestant expressed discomfort at Mary’s role in the Catholic faith. I wouldn’t then leave that aspect of my faith out of any future discussion. Instead I would explain the difference between worship, veneration, and reverence and how these concepts interact with respect to Mary. I probably wouldn’t convince him, but I also wouldn’t be denying an aspect of my faith.
In the case of this film, I think it is imperative that Gibson, his supporters, and any priests, pastors, etc. who speak of this film provide both the correct interpretation about respective Jewish and Roman authorities’ roles in the crucifixion and the proper Christian response to such roles.
Nor do I think the ADL was out of line in its requests. I just don’t think Gibson is blameworthy for not responding to requests to change the film or even to requests to discuss changing the film. I do think Gibson should meet with the ADL to discuss effective means of communicating the ideas in the previous paragraph and to condemn anyone who commits violence in Christ’s name.
posted
dkw, I'll get the real reason out of the way first, so that people can go into get ignoring it over with right way. Surveys of religious people, many of them carried out by religious people themselves, in America have consistently shown significantly higher levels of prejudice and in-group/out-group thinking than in non-religious people. Now, I looked back over the stuff I've read on this and the latest date I have is from 1978. It's possible that things have changed dramatically since then, but I have no reason to believe that this is true. That's the main reason, that people (including those who were invested in finding the opposite) have used methods I trust and consistently come up results that show this.
My other reasons are inferential. First, America as a whole has a big problem with factionalism. Since a large majority of Americans are Christian, I'd expect that their values would be reflected in the American national character.
Second, the doctrine of many Christian denominations is geared towards an in-group/out-group conception of the world. I'd argue that this is compounded by the focus of many of the Protestant denominations on faith only and a neglect of works.
Third, experiences from my childhood completely surrounded by Catholics taught me how prejudiced they are and how invested many of the leaders of the religion are in propgating this prejudice. A friend of mine who is now a Cathloic priest has frequently complained of this to me in his ministry and dealings with his superiors.
Forth, as far as I can tell, there have been no recent major inter-Christian movements that haven't centered on specific issues, such as anti-homosexuality. I could be wrong about that. How have your experiences with inter-faith stuff gone?
Look, I'm tired of having this discussion. I have this other nice thread that I'm honestly much more interested in. I've really tried to talk about positive things that I'm interested in, but they don't seem to get anywhere near the attention that me challenging things does.
I'll state it plain. I have major problems with mainstream Christianity. I also have major problems with mainstream American culture. As far as I can tell - and I try to be thorough about this - I have at least partially legitimate reasons for these problems. When I talk about them, I'm not some raving Christian-hater. I an genuinely concerned about these things, not just because of their effect on society, but because of the individuals who are caught up in them. I think that Christians all over would do themselves a great service if they took a long, hard look at their frankly awful history and at their troubled present, instead of immediately falling into apologist/defensive mode*. I could be wrong about this. Also, I honestly believe that a sort of Christian renewal is one of the best hopes for increasing the health in American culture, which is one of the main reasons that it's a big issue for me. I could be wrong about that too.
I also could be wrong that my opinions deserve at least a little bit of respect. Maybe people ignore and dismiss me because I'm lacking either intelligence or intellectual integrity, instead of because I'm saying bad things about CHRISTIANS. Maybe people whose ancestors were persecuted for 1000 or so years by Christians are off base for being concerned about this happening again. Maybe, despite the fact that the vast majority of people talking about this are expressing that concern and not calling for a boycott or censorship of the movie, that's the opinion that people are constantly fighting against isn't a cause for concern because of it's defensive nature. I just really don't see this.
* I've had people who have done this (yourself included dkw) and I think that our conversations have been interesting and meaningful.
quote: Just as Jews are responding to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism (virtually all of it in Europe), many Christians are responding to decades of Christian-bashing -- films and art mocking Christian symbols, a war on virtually any public Christian expression (from the death of the Christmas party to the moral identification of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims). Moreover, many Jewish groups and media people now attacking "The Passion" have a history of irresponsibly labeling conservative Christians anti-Semitic.
Edit: I think this is what's happenning in this thread, too. Much like the Child-free restaurants and theaters thread, where people were responding more to outrageous experiences of their own (as people having nice outings ruined by rowdy kids or as parents having been sneered at for having the gall to reproduce) than to the actual question at hand.
posted
Dennis is indeed a great guy. (Thanks for the link, Magson, the paper which I saw his review (reprinted?) in isn't online.) And while I don't agree with him on all issues, I respect him greatly. Important points he makes include:
quote: The increasing tension over this film has reinforced impressions I offered Mel Gibson that day. When watching "The Passion," Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films.
quote: It is essential that Christians understand this. Every Jew, secular, religious, assimilated, left-wing, right-wing, fears being killed because he is Jewish. This is the best-kept secret about Jews, who are widely perceived as inordinately secure and powerful. But it is the only universally held sentiment among Jews. After the Holocaust and with Islamic terrorists seeking to murder Jews today, this, too, is not paranoid.
I think that WWII could happen all over again. If you go back and look at what led up to WWII, there are striking similarities. While there are different ethnic groups being targeted, the frightening thing is that we didn't seem to remember much of the lesson from WWII.
And I'm a bit tired of people dismissing others fears. Till you've been the target, you'll never understand what they are talking about anyway, so practice that Christianity and empathize. Don't be so critical. Try to understand their concern. "Walk a mile in his shoes" and all.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
My snappies suck.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
