I’m sorry if this question sounds harsh, but there’s no other way to phrase it: What the hëll is wrong with the bulk of Christians in this country that if Jesus is depicted as loving and accepting, that portrayal is stoned into oblivion, but if he’s depicted as being beaten and tortured to death, THAT they come flocking to watch by the busload?
“The Book of Daniel” was an incredibly good program that was quick-fried by people who, for the most part, hadn’t seen it or refused to see it. Critics and commentators loved demonizing concepts such as that the titular minister “popped pills” without bothering to mention it wasn’t speed or uppers or downers but pain killers…an addiction he was wrestling with rather than being glorified. Or that his daughter “dealt drugs,” without bothering to mention that it was a stupid mistake she was busted for in the first five minutes of the show, and she quickly gave it up, and that she was doing it to raise money to publish her own manga comic since she was really an artist. Nor did anyone ever bring up the many scenes where the family was shown as a loving, caring group who never hesitated to display that love for one another.
But what really drew fire was the concept of Jesus as a patient sounding board for the frustrated Daniel. If they’d only bothered to actually WATCH the program, rather than allow blowhards to make up their minds for them, they’d have seen a depiction of their savior that’s probably the most heart warming and loving version of divinity since George Burns explained, “I didn’t create the universe in six days. Actually, I thought about it for five days and did it in one. I work best under pressure. But my days aren’t the same as yours, y’know. When I got up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school.”
Sample the triumphant words of Donald Wildmon: “This shows the average American that he doesn’t have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook.”
No. What it shows is that the average American is intolerant. So much so that he couldn’t JUST make the decision to try a program for himself and, if he didn’t like it, change the channel or even, God forbid, turn off the TV and read a book. No, the average American had to do everything possible to make sure that OTHER average Americans couldn’t judge for THEMselves by organizing and driving a series off the air. Of course, what most burned their biscuits was Jesus being depicted as being tolerant of sinners or even (gasp) gays. If Jesus had been shown as condemning all aspects of sin and assuring Daniel that his gay son was doomed to hëll, THAT they might well have supported.
But for Jesus to display tolerance of sinners…for Wildmon to display tolerance of other Americans rather than organize to drive quality shows off the air? Can’t have that, no, no. Because…well, because why, exactly? Aren’t Christians supposed to be charitable, tolerant, understanding? I was pretty much sure that was part of the teachings.
What is it about human beings that we constantly create codes of conduct for ourselves with lofty ideals–tolerance, love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, free expression–and then not only fail to live up to them, but TAKE PRIDE in that failure? It’s an interesting question, I think. Too bad shows such as “The Book of Daniel,” where such questions might be explored, are being canned.
PAD
• 
Re: Brokeback Mountain
I’m glad that the movie’s doing well.
Of course, when I heard the premise, my first thought was, “Didn’t South Park already lampoon this movie in the Sundance Film Festival episode?”
Sans the pudding, of course.
Of course, when I heard the premise, my first thought was, “Didn’t South Park already lampoon this movie in the Sundance Film Festival episode?”
I’m going through alot of old episodes right now, and, yeah, as soon as that line about “film festivals being nothing but gay cowboy movies”, I couldn’t help but think how far ahead of the times Parker & Stone were/are. I mean, that episode is from like the 2nd season, 1997 or so.
But even then, they knew there one day be a movie about gay cowboys. 🙂
When I first heard Brokeback Mountain, I immediately thought about that episode of South Park. IRRC, Cartman said words the effect that all independent movies are about “gay cowboys eating pudding.” I think that was also the title of one of the movies at the film festival, too.
I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain, but does anyone know if they eat pudding in that movie?
Pudding? Uh, no.
What’s amazing is that this movie could well earn upwards of 100 million without ever coming close to the number 1 spot. That’s a rare thing.
All the folks who are cheering about the cancellation of “The Book of Daniel” as a triumph of Christianity over blasphemy had better pray (he said without a trace of irony) that neither of the Jesus-themed TV series ideas I carry around in my head ever gets into production.
Meanwhile, how do you feel about [adult swim]’s “Moral Orel?”
Paul
What’s amazing is that this movie could well earn upwards of 100 million without ever coming close to the number 1 spot. That’s a rare thing.
Only if the DVD sales do extremely well. After 8 weeks in the theater, it’s only grossed about half that:
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/
In contrast, Narnia has been in the theaters for the same 8 week periond and has grossed nearly $280 million. And Underworld:Evolution, which is being almost universally panned, has earned $44 million in just 2 weeks.
Fun with Ðìçk and Jane, another movie considered a real turkey, has grossed $106 million in just 6 weeks.
For all the critical praise Brokeback Mountain has earned, it’s numbers are not that impressive.
The Bible doesn’t say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES.
Er, no. The word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible, and wasn’t coined until the 19th century.
What the Bible forbids is “et-zakhar…tishkkav mishkkevei ‘isah“, litterally “lie down with a man the way a woman lies down.” It is unclear to what exact sexual practice this refers (although an argument can be made it refers only to RECEIVING anal sex). Regardless, it is unlikely to refer to modern, androphilic homosexual relationships between coeval men, since such relationships were rare in the ancient world. And it doesn’t address sex between women at all.
It’s also worth mentioning that this prohibition is just a chapter before the Bible forbids wearing cloth of different fibers…
In the New Testement, arsenokoitai (“bed-men”) and malakoi (“flimsy ones”) are said not to enter heaven, but, since these words don’t appear in a sexual context anywhere else in the pre-Biblical Greek corpus, we have no idea to what these words are supposed to mean. There were plenty of well-attested words for various male-male relationships in Greek, but Paul didn’t use any of them.
Listen, homosexual relationships in the ancient world were very different from those that exist today. Wives are no longer treated as property, and likewise it is no longer acceptable for a man to have sexual relations with a boy or a slave. If the New Testament was condemning any sort of homosexual relationship, it would probably have been Greek pederasty, which I’m perfectly comfortable condemning myself. It could NOT have been condemning modern-style homosexual relationships between consenting adult men of the same social class, because such relationships were almost unknown.
And Underworld:Evolution, which is being almost universally panned,
By critics, sure.
But it sounds like alot of people are just enjoying Evolution for what it is: your standard popcorn flick.
I’m a Christian, an Episcopalian, and have watched three hours of THE BOOK OF DANIEL. I have to say, I really dislike this show. Not because of the depiction of Christ talking to the main character (this is actually the only part of the show that I do like), but rather I dislike the show because of it’s lack of authenticity.
The show centers around the rector of an Episcopal church and his family — but I honestly don’t believe the writers have ever met an Episcopalian.
Myself, I am a cradle Episcopalian and in my life I have never met a male Episcopal priest referred to as Reverend. Some times female priests are referred to a Reverernds as “Father” seems an odd fit and “Mother” is a term reserved for nuns. “Daniel” is called Reverend Daniel where he should be appropriately referred to as “Father Daniel.” He is also dubbed a minister, not a priest. I imagine that this was a creative decision so as not to seem too Catholic.
Speaking of which, I was grossly offended by the stereotype of the Catholic priest being hooked up with the mob.
The show’s just badly written.
Anybody remember NOTHING SACRED? ABC ran this series years ago about a Catholic priest struggling with his faith. Beautifully written. Just like DANIEL, it was villified by the religous right and rushed off-the-air.
I wonder why the networks bother?
Aron
Listen, homosexual relationships in the ancient world were very different from those that exist today.
Sorry, that should read: “…homosexual AND heterosexual relationships in the ancient world…”
For all the critical praise Brokeback Mountain has earned, it’s numbers are not that impressive.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres. Like WALK THE LINE it has stayed under the radar and quietly scored cosistantly high per screen averages (consider that, per screen, it made more in it’s 8th week than UNDERWORLD EVOLUTION did in its second week.
Even if it begins to drop off now, I expect the almost certain Academy Award nominations to give it another boost. Perhaps 80 million is a more realistic final domestic total.
At any rate, with only a 14 million dollar budget it has to be a considered a profitable hit, especially for a subject that most expected would sink it without a trace.
But it sounds like alot of people are just enjoying Evolution for what it is: your standard popcorn flick.
I’ll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.
I’ll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.
Well, for many, this one might be more about the fact that she gets out of the black leather and into her birthday suit for a scene (albiet, still not actually *showing* anything).
I’m not sure that’s correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres.
That might partially explain it’s overall domestic gross, but I’ve seen theaters hesistant to run a controversial movie only to embrace it after the initial couple of weeks made it a hit. When Fahrenheit 911 was released, only one small arthouse theater in my town would air it at first. A few weeks later, when it was all over the media, the major multiplexes picked it up.
Brokeback Mountain isn’t getting that same kind of buzz.
Even if it begins to drop off now, I expect the almost certain Academy Award nominations to give it another boost. Perhaps 80 million is a more realistic final domestic total.
If past history is any indication, Oscar nominations have little impact on box office receipts.
At any rate, with only a 14 million dollar budget it has to be a considered a profitable hit, especially for a subject that most expected would sink it without a trace.
Sure, being cheaper then Narnia and probably even Ðìçk and Jane (I think 14 million is Jim Carey’s asking price now), will make it profitable, but it won’t make it gross $100 million.
I’ll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.
And there you have the only reason I went to see the first Underworld.
>I’m not sure that’s correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres.
>That might partially explain it’s overall domestic gross, but I’ve seen theaters hesistant to run a controversial movie only to embrace it after the initial couple of weeks made it a hit. When Fahrenheit 911 was released, only one small arthouse theater in my town would air it at first. A few weeks later, when it was all over the media, the major multiplexes picked it up.
>Brokeback Mountain isn’t getting that same kind of buzz.
Ahhhh… the power of homophobia. A good government conspiracy film can be brought into theatres dispite reservations, while two guys kissing… well, a person has to draw a line, right?
“Ahhhh… the power of homophobia. A good government conspiracy film can be brought into theatres dispite reservations, while two guys kissing… well, a person has to draw a line, right?”
Nah, it’s just that all the intelligent people already really that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and thus it’s old news.
The only people complaining about homosexuality are the idiot religio-fascists. And the intelligent people already know how full of šhìŧ they are.
But you quiet, real christians really newed to start speaking up and getting it into the media that folks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush do NOT represent christianity…
Nah, it’s just that all the intelligent people already really that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and thus it’s old news.
I read on Slate the other day where one of the columnists described Christianity as the “new homosexuality” in Hollywood. That is, ten years ago, if you wanted to be seen as bold and daring you did a show or a movie about a gay character, now in the post-Will and Grace era, they’re considered old hate. Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.
But you quiet, real christians really newed to start speaking up and getting it into the media that folks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush do NOT represent christianity…
Gee, haven’t I been saying that for almost a week on this page now?
The Bible doesn’t say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES.
Er, no. The word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible, and wasn’t coined until the 19th century.
You have to remember that the Bibles we read today are translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and different translators may use a different term that has the same contextual meaning. One Bible translator may use the term “homosexuality,” while another may use the more literal “men who lie with men as men lie with women,” which is a bit of a mouthful (but certainly not so obscure that a reasonable person one cannot grasp the meaning). Just because the original Bible writers didn’t use the English word “homosexuality” doesn’t mean that they were confused as to what the practice was.
And are you trying to suggest that homosexuality was a rare, unknown, mystifying practice, but anal sex was commonplace? If I read, “as a man lies down with a woman” and my interpretation is made in a vacuum, intercourse is the first thing that comes to my mind, and certainly not anal sex (isn’t that why the qualifier “anal” has to appear before the word “sex” in the first place?).
However, one thing we certainly DO see more of today than in years past is people arguing semantics to complicate matters that would otherwise be cut and dry. (I’m surprised Bill Clinton hasn’t posted yet.)
As well, people have to remember that, even in the eyes of the early Christians, the laws and rituals written by Moses were closed upon the death of Christ (again, in the Books of Romans and Hebrews). However, since Paul (who was a contemporary of the Apostles of Christ) still included homosexuality as an inappropriate practice (Romans Chp 1, 1Corinthians Chp 6), then just because Christians no longer had to follow the designs provided for the priestly garbs (a ritual) doesn’t mean that God suddenly said, “All bets are off” in terms of unclean practices (laws). (After all, are you going to suggest that God intends men to sleep with animals now, too, since that was also outlawed in the book of Leviticus, which you consider to be antiquated? I mean, Paul didn’t reiterate that law, but it certainly seems a no-brainer to me.)
If God, Christ, or the Apostles thought Paul was so wrong in his statements, don’t you think they would have corrected him (or stopped him) before the Bible was finished?
Again, I’m not arguing against homosexuality. In my mind, consenting adults can do as they please. It just seems that so many people on this board are so intent on proving their liberalism that they’re re-writing the Scriptures.
One of my favorite arguments was this one:
While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad, it simply is not, if you actually READ the text and apply some context, deserving of the condemnation that Christians apply.
“I admit the Bible says it’s bad, but if you read the text, it’s not deserving of condemnation?”
Look, no reasonable person on this board is trying to suggest that being a homosexual person is synonomous with being a evil, lecherous creature deserving of humiliation, beatings, snide remarks, ostracism, or anything other than being treated like any other human being based on their individual merits. And this isn’t a charitable position — it’s their right. In addition, Christ (and by extention, God), is presented as a loving, caring individual who is patient with everyone, and wants to see everyone reconciled with him.
That being said, the Scriptures also show, over and over again, that the patience of God is not absolute, and not just in areas like homosexuality (that just seems to be the hot button on this particular board because of the TV show that started the discussion — I could have replaced “homosexuality” with “premaritial sex” in all my posts and still have made the same comments). But to me, having a loving God and having a discipling God are completely reconciliable. I can love my son very much, but if he is continually bringing drugs into my home, I may have no choice but to evict him. I may always wish for his return (the Prodigal Son and all that), but for the sake of my family, I may need to set boundaries.
I can’t speak for God as to what his problems with homosexuality are (I could make some guesses, but that would be inappropriate, and ultimately inconclusive anyway). These problems are ones I don’t share. But the point is, I’m not pretending like some people on this board that the disapproval isn’t on record, and certainly not to the point that I’ll try to rewrite or play semantic headgames just to justify my personal views. Too many people alter what they consider God’s requirements are for them to the point at which they’re already met. That’s not respect or worship. That’s sanctimony.
I mean, this board is going back and forth, not on whether homosexuality is a bad thing, but whether or not the Bible says it is. I would have thought that the latter could be proven more objectively, but I guess I was wrong, which seems weird. (After all, I don’t agree with Hitler, but I agree that he existed and orchestrated the Holocaust — the first is opinion, the second is mere historical recitation, which I thought was the issue above.)
It seems like we could quote five or six different Scriptures, pulled from twenty different Bibles that all contextually say the same thing about this subject, and still we’ll have people say, “No, no, that’s not what it means.” (I won’t do that — it appears that it’ll be a waste of time).
I don’t know. It may be that liberal people honestly think of themselves as good (I think a liberal thinking individual is someone who is very interested in the rights of others, which is too much a rarity). Liberal people have a respect for the principles in God’s word, even if they aren’t actually believers. Therefore, if they read things they can’t, in their hearts, either agree with or at least reconcile, they feel obliged to impose their own thoughts on the text rather than have to admit to themselves that they might disagree with God on something.
Again, I don’t know. I can’t, and don’t want to, speak for anyone on this. But considering how contentious determining a mere fact is on this board (No value judgments — Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes or No?) it seem like people are unable to divorce their own opinion from the Bible’s, and are so DESPARATE to keep them (at least in their own minds) aligned that they’ll cling to semantic arguments (the last refuge of the politician) rather than have to say the words, “God, if these words reflect your feelings, I disagree with you.” (Or perhaps it’s, “God, if these words reflect your feelings, it means that I have to change to fit you, and I don’t want to do that.” Or, perhaps most tellingly, “God, if these words reflect your feelings, that means if I don’t change, there may be consequences, and I don’t want to admit that.)
(As a side note, I actually expected a lot more people to take the argument, “I believe in God, but not the Bible.” Of course, people in that camp would have no incentive to protect the Bible’s integrity from what they saw to be a misiterpretation. They would have just said, “Yeah, the Bible says it condemns homosexuality. I don’t think it’s God’s word,” which pretty much closes that argument.)
In any event, If you read my posts over the course of this board, you’ll see that my original point, from the first day, was not that THE BOOK OF DANIEL tried to portray a priest and his family going through some (rather sensationalized) problems, whether or not they included homosexuality. My problem was that the writers actually used Christ as a character in their story to take a stand, whether by his absolution or passivity, on issues that are clearly the writers’ own. Obviously, having Christ on your side on these issues gives you some street cred (which is why he was the character chosen), but I would be as disturbed if they used any personage, whether religious or not (they could have used Rudy Giuliani and my agruments would have been substantially the same), without any consideration as to the person’s ACTUAL views on the subject, especially when the record suggests that said person might have the opposing view.
Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.
Bah. To be bold and daring, publish a few cartoons of Mohammod. Then watch your country get bucotted, your people threatened and a former president of the United States leave you out to dry.
Buy Denmark! I, for one, will gladly eat more butter cookies for freedom. It’s a sacrifice but freedom isn’t for skinny wusses.
curious…the show is canceled already? wow.. I hadn’t had a chance to check it out.. I wonder how many episodes they filmed.. maybe the producers could put them out on dvd..
JAMES:
In all seriousness, thanks for at least taking the time to think about all of this. It’s more than some people would.
Also, I apologize if my statement that “While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad…” wasn’t worded very properly.
What I meant to say was that whereas male-male sex is technically mentioned, if you apply some context, it actually ISN’T bad as some conservatives will claim. I was trying to say that no… the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as we recognize it, however much we’re told otherwise.
In any case, using the Leviticus societal rules as a defence is always tricky because Christ himself OVERTURNED many of them in the New Testament. Those who rely on the Leviticus verses that mention male-male sex are… gee, zealous rule-counters like the Pharasees. (sp?) Whom Christ actively condemned.
I suppose that was my actual point… the Bible technically mentions male-male relationships, but no, not in the condemnatory fashion you might suppose, and anyone who gets overly reliant on the Leviticus rules is… acting like the Pharasees.
As Christ said (in a nutshell): “Love your God, love your neighbor, love yourself, and even love your enemy. Everything else is details.”
As someone who’s been just observing the discussion here, let me try to clear up a disconnect which I think may be going on. I think what some have been trying to say about the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is that the severity of the condemnation which is actually in the text may have been exaggerated, by those who wish to persecute homosexuals; and moreover, that these persecutors have to pick and choose to make their case work. They are ignoring many other actions which are condemned, in Leviticus or other places – because they are seen as ridiculous or anitquated or whatever – and focusing on this one group. “Oh, well we all know that God doesn’t REALLY mean THAT – but every word against homosexuality, THAT’S a severe, literal indictment. We must follow God’s will there, ’cause He means it … but, just ignore that other stuff.” If they’re gonna claim that the book is “The Word”, then how do they reconcile picking and chosing which words they obey? Do they have knowledge about which “words of God” are the literal and which ones are just writers filling space?
(And BOY, am I not saying that we should obey the literal word of the Bible, BTW …)
Dang it, got all the way to the last few posts before Bill brought up what I was gonna say!
The current Denmark situation is unbelievable.
Anyway, it took me awhile, but I finally figured out what IOKIARDI means.
“It’s OK If A Radical Democrat’s Involved.” That’s it, right? Anytime someone thinks he or she is being clever by throwing that out there, that’s what it’s gonna be in my mind.
And homosexuality, indoor plumbing, shaving, whatever aside, can we all agree that the one thing the Bible says is the basest of evils is an inability to distinguish between “its” and “it’s”????
Let’s just face it, speaking as a Christian, the Bible says a lot of stuff that is just plain silly. Also, ignoring the questionability of the historical accuracy of many portrayals, being an apostle did not make one immune to having one’s own prejudices. To claim that just because the Bible says something, that’s God’s opinion is, frankly, ridiculous. Every single page of the Bible was written by PEOPLE, predominately men, who had their own agenda to put forth.
So, if some television writer wants to make God or Jesus a character and put his own words in His mouth, bully for him. Religion has been doing it for years.
-Rex Hondo-
LUKE:
Thanks for expressing all of that so concisely. That’s precisely what I was trying to say, only sloppily so at times.
LUKE:
Thanks for putting all of that so concisely. That’s exactly what I was trying to say, only more sloppily so at times.
Dark Wesley
“It’s OK If A Radical Democrat’s Involved.” That’s it, right?
Close, but no trip to Havana for you.
Anytime someone thinks he or she is being clever by throwing that out there, that’s what it’s gonna be in my mind.
You keep thinking that.
In the mean time, be sure to cheer on the monkey tonight when he’s on tv.
I also think Luke’s comment is virtually unassailable. Nicely said, man.
Posted by Rex Hondo at January 31, 2006 05:35 PM
Let’s just face it, speaking as a Christian, the Bible says a lot of stuff that is just plain silly. Also, ignoring the questionability of the historical accuracy of many portrayals, being an apostle did not make one immune to having one’s own prejudices. To claim that just because the Bible says something, that’s God’s opinion is, frankly, ridiculous. Every single page of the Bible was written by PEOPLE, predominately men, who had their own agenda to put forth.
-Rex Hondo-
As I mentioned earlier, this was a position that I actually expected to see more prominently on this thread.
I think that most of us posting on the thread were working under the unspoken stipulation that, of course, one would have to first prove that the Bible was God’s word before one could use it to examine God’s stance on various issues, but that it was a topic too large for even this thread to handle.
That being said, I have to ask this question (and not to attack you, Rex, honest-to-goodness — I’m actually curious) — how can a person say that he is a Christian (i.e. – he adheres to the Christian body of faith), yet immediately undermine the only body of writings that claims to the canonical “manual” of that faith? Please be clear — I’m not asking that to imply hypocrisy; I’m literally asking this one question with no value judgments attached: Once one disowns the Bible, does anything else even exist that can serve as the foundation of (specifically) Christian faith? Where did (or can) one go to come up with a belief system that one can effectively call “Christian” once one disavows the Bible?
My questions are framed, not based on the conclusion that the Bible is, by definition, the Word of God and the ultimate guide to Christ, but that there just doesn’t seem to be a “Number Two” on the list to move down to. I mean, isn’t that kind of like saying that you love the Star Wars universe except for the stuff George Lucas was involved with? Literally — what else is there?
(Or do you use the term “Christian” to mean one who appreciates and endeavors to adopt the principles as acknowledged that this “Christ” fellow taught ([hmph, hmph]– seemed like a good chap), but not necessarily one who follows Christ himself?)
Again, honestly, Rex, I’m not attacking you or trying to make you “defend” your position. This is literally just something that I can’t work out and I’d really appreciate your comments on the subject.
“I’ve learned that there are three things never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.”
Linus
All things considered, this thread has been pretty civil throughout. I just wanted to personally say that I’ve really enjoyed reading people’s comments — it’s important to sometimes go into those “taboo” subjects so that other people open up your mind and make you think about what YOU think. And most of us generally know the caliber of comments we’re going to get from visitors to this site, so I just wanted to say, “Thanks, guys.”
That being said, if you want to stay on my good side, don’t bring up that $*#$ing Great Pumpkin.
That show was blasphemous. I’m glad it’s gone.
America and the world needs to repent.
Christians only want to save you from hëll, nothing wrong with that.
Everyone should believe in something higher than themselves.
http://www.repentamerica.com/index.htm
Well, I certainly believe you’re higher than me. Much higher than anyone I’ve ever known, as a matter of fact…
(Okay, it was a cheap shot, but you were all thinking it! You know you were!)
James, don’t worry about it. Believe me, you’re being much more civil and open-minded than I’ve come to expect of people in general.
While I’ve come to a place in my life where I have very little use for organized religion, I still consider myself a Christian because I still endeavor to follow Christ’s example and teachings. (Admittedly, usually falling woefully short) Most of the rest of what a great many Christians tend to focus on is, in my humble opinion, extrainious details, and not really relevant to the core message anyway.
Hope that clears it up. I’ll spare everyone a long-winded enumeration of my, shall we say, differences of opinion with “The Church.”
-Rex Hondo-
Thanks for the kind words, Rex.
Now, as to “Repent America,”
Posted by Repent America at February 1, 2006 10:29 PM
That show was blasphemous. I’m glad it’s gone.
America and the world needs to repent.
Christians only want to save you from hëll, nothing wrong with that.
I would say to this comment that it’s a good thing when any individual takes an active role in promoting what they feel to be a good cause, including the spread of Christianity. Most of us (me included) have lost the activist spirit, and we just try to interact with as few people as possible in their day, making as few waves as possible
That being said, a large body of activist Christians are becoming a bit pious and confrontational in their message, and that’s NOT a good thing (or even a Christian thing, if you want to get down to it).
Matthew 10: 12 – 14 12 When YOU are entering into the house, greet the household; 13 and if the house is deserving, let the peace YOU wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from YOU return upon YOU. 14 Wherever anyone does not take YOU in or listen to YOUR words, on going out of that house or that city shake the dust off YOUR feet.
“Shake the dust off your feet.” If people aren’t interested, LET IT GO.
When you read the Scriptures pertaining to the Christian missionary work, it’s always about getting God’s message out — making it available without shoving it down someone’s throat, and without shutting up every person you disagree with. I mean, if you believe in the redemptive power of God’s word, why are you so afraid of other people’s thoughts? Are you afraid you can’t make a positive case for it on its own merits? More importantly, why waste time shutting people up that could be better spent spreading a more positive message?
And what does it say about your Christian “love” for people when you just want them to listen to what you say but have no interest in honestly sitting down with them, to help them reconcile and understand what they’re hearing so that they can make the best application of it? Is it because you might have to listen to THEM?
Secondly, Jesus was not afraid to discuss ideas in a rational way with people that might be inclined to be on the other side of the fence (John Ch 3).
Third, God made us in his own image. That means two of the things he gave us were free will (so that we could CHOOSE to be his servants as opposed to robotically serving him), and a sense of justice.
And sometimes, that sense of justice may make us question God in matters wherein we do not perceive his will clearly. Moreover, precedent shows that God does not disapprove of such questioning if done in a respectful way.
Many right-wing Christians make a lot of the story of God destroying Sodam and its depraved populace. However, they don’t make a lot of the fact that, just before God did so, Abraham made a point of saying that it didn’t sit right with him. God had to reassure him that He was not rash or indelicate with his judgments — he would not destroy righteous people along with wicked ones for the sake of expediency (Genesis 18:20-33), and, in fact, made provisions to rescue the righteous residents of Sodom from harm.
Many good people recognize the rights of others to do things that they may, themselves, do not agree with, things that they feel God may have a problem with. We may certainly vocalize these things, respectfully. If we feel our spirituality is at risk, we may feel it necessary to pull away from these others. But ultimately, any problems God has with anyone is between THAT PERSON and GOD. Enough of us have plenty of “rafters to take out of our own eyes” to worrry about other people’s “splinters.”
That being said (and just to play the other side of the fence), sometimes “being a good person” isn’t quite enough. I’m sure that not every single person on the Earth during Noah’s day was a complete degenerate. However, the way to save themselves from the flood wasn’t just by being a good person, but by actively casting their sides with God by actually GETTING ON THE ARK.
Sometimes being a good person is not about being quiet, but about being vocal. (Doesn’t it say something when the AFI chose Atticus Finch as cinema’s greatest hero? Peck was hardly confrontational, but by no means passive.)
Liberal and moral are not always the same thing. Sometimes the liberal thing (respecting other’s rights) means letting them do their own thing, which can often mean self-indulgent behavior (which is not a human crime, but is often immoral, which doesn’t score points with God). For example, eighteen year-olds may have the “right” to engage in premarital sex. However, considering the dangers and reponsibilities that can come from it (and not just pregnancy and STDs, but even the emotional havoc sex can reak in an immature relationship), exercising their rights isn’t necessarily the GOOD thing for them.
And just because we let people do what they want doesn’t immediately mean that we have to condone their behavior. There’s a sector of (for want of a better term) “right-wing liberals” out there that enforce the view that acceptance of other people’s rights has to include, not just tolerance, but active agreement with others’ choices. Sometimes these liberals can be more hardcore and unyielding than the worst conservative.
And sometimes, we don’t say what we think, not because we want to be liberal, but because we’re afraid to start a confrontation by appearing NOT liberal.
The first comes from strength of character. The second comes from weakness of character.
Doesn’t it say something about what our society has become in that who we currently perceive to be the biggest morons in our society are not the people who smoke five feet from the entrance of the doctor’s office, the people who go into the express lane of the supermarket with a full cart of groceries, the people who park right in the traffic lane in front of Wal-Mart rather than an empty space in the back of the parking lot? No, the people who get our dirtiest looks are the ones that ACTIVELY CALL THEM ON IT.
We’ve become a society so afraid of its liberals that we’ll even defend a person’s right to be INCONSIDERATE. What does THAT say?
So, ultimately, every time we have to make a decision for ourselves on these social issues, it’s really important to figure out, not just WHAT we think, but WHY. It might mean the difference of whether we have strong people or weak people, a strong society or a weak society, and (included only because it’s been a component of this thread) people acceptable to God or people rejected by him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060202/ts_nm/religion_denmark_cartoons_dc_14;_ylt=Aqy_UoTIj0pTC4rBDhcpsgVZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
I’m thinking about this whole flap about the Mohammond cartoon and in a way, this is plus for Bush. Finally, someone else in the world has gotten every Muslim nation pìššëd øff at them instead of us.
Dark Wesley, James –
I just felt I should say thank you for the compliments – very kind! Glad if my comment was of use.
Luke
I know the CBLDF has enough on its plate right here in this country but I wonder if they will take a stand on this. I guess editorial cartoons are a separate issue.
I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls. Question–Will Newsweek or Time or any American newspaper/magazine follow suit?
Whenever some avant garde artist does some sad little mocking of Christianity and acts like it’s all so cutting edge and controversial, I have to laugh. Wow, what’s gonna happen, you get a harsh letter from the president of the Catholic League? Take on radical Islam, tough guy, then you’ll get your props.
I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls.
I agree.
I mean, I really do laugh at the notion that Christians in this country are somehow oppressed or something, when the freedom to give the finger to the other side goes both ways in this country.
But Islam? Man, I’m really starting to wonder about alot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can’t say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they’ll go ape-šhìŧ on you.
And I say culture, because things like this I think go far beyond a simple religious belief.
You’re right, it’s something much more than just religion. Witness the fact that, in an effort to drum up even MORE hysteria, some of the people attacking Denmark are fabricating additional cartoons and claiming that they were among the ones originally published. So they are creating NEW blasphemies–hardly the actions of a true believer.
“I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls. Question–Will Newsweek or Time or any American newspaper/magazine follow suit?”
Not if they have the same parent company owners as the TV networks. The news tonight showed the followers of Islam storming buildings and making threats to bomb churches over this but started the story out by pointing out that they wouldn’t air any of the strips on their program. This was NBC. This is the same news program that never blinked about showing scenes from The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ, Superstar and every gay man marching along in a pride parade and dancing in front of a church as the gay Christ. This is the same news network that has shown clips of God on TV as depicted on The Simpsons. But they can’t show these strips because they may offend.
I would like to think that NBC is a lone example of this but dámņëd near all the nets seem to be taking this stance. This is PC gone braindead beyond all repair.
Or maybe it’s fear that these guys would bomb the crap out of their studios whereas the “extreme” Christian wingnuts wouldn’t?
I meant that to have quotes up there so that it read….
…”the followers of Islam”…
Just to be sarky about their true nature.
Not if they have the same parent company owners as the TV networks.
Did you catch the bit during the NBC report that one of the newspapers that reprinted the cartoons, in Europe, is owned by an Egyptian? And that said owner fired the editor afterward?
This is the same news network that has shown clips of God on TV as depicted on The Simpsons.
Uh, no, The Simpsons air on Fox, not NBC. Now, maybe the local NBC affiliate in your town has aired reruns of the Simpsons, but that’s not the same as NBC itself airing them.
But Islam? Man, I’m really starting to wonder about alot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can’t say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they’ll go ape-šhìŧ on you.
I really hate to say this, but this is just further evidence that much of the Middle East is still stuck in a Medieval-Era mindset and really isn’t ready for western-style democracy.
PROLOGUE: WRITTEN AFTER THE BODY OF THE POST
(I’ve re-read this post, and I already feel it’s too harsh. This was more about me venting than anything else. I feel like a lot of innocent people are going to feel targetted, and feel the need to respond. All I can say is, the single thing that I hate right now is just THIS MESS that we’re all trapped in, and I just wish all of our respective leaders could pull their heads out of their Cowboy/Ji-had áššëš and start some concessions based on the premise of looking out for the little guy, the OTHER guy, rather than just themselves. All sides need to come together, and no side seems willing to, and I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon without some serious bloodshed.)
Posted by Den at February 3, 2006 12:38 AM
But Islam? Man, I’m really starting to wonder about a lot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can’t say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they’ll go ape-šhìŧ on you.
I really hate to say this, but this is just further evidence that much of the Middle East is still stuck in a Medieval-Era mindset and really isn’t ready for western-style democracy.
I’m kinda on your page on this one, Den — reluctant to say something that isn’t “politically correct,” but it’s hard to ignore something that isn’t just WRITTEN on the wall, but plastered up in Day-Glo Graphiti Paint.
I used to try to say to myself that the Muslim culture just happened to have its more-than-proportional share of crazies (and certainly more than its fair share of problems that could MAKE the average citizen a little crazy) but that most of them just wanted to get through their days like everyone else. But when the majority of these “everyday citizens” voted in a terrorist organization to be the new Palestinian leaders, I had to wonder if I was giving them too much credit. Sometimes, you have to call a spade a spade.
Of course (which plays into the thread here considering the Christian right’s attack on the Book of Daniel), while the reaction of the Muslim world is completely outrageous, it was also a predictable one. In addition, the Muslim world could use more than a little criticism, but I don’t think they share the Western sensibilities to see a political cartoon as a serious form of expression — we see it as symbolic shorthand, but I could understand an outsider as seeing it as trivializing and undermining, and a better choice for the message could have been chosen.
Plus, we have to remember that the Islamists are mad, not just because of the commentary, but because of the depiction of Mohammed, which is completely forbidden in their culture. To use one of their sacred symbols in such a fashion isn’t critical commentary — it IS an insult, and insensitivity like that isn’t going to make things better.
All I can say to Denmark and the rest of the European Union defending them is, “I think you are saying is right, but you should have been smarter saying it. And when this maelstrom calms down, I just hope you think it was worth it.”
So, if I felt pretty strongly about my culture, I might be angry, too.
Although there is an easily-defined line between righteous indignation and campaigns of hatred, rioting and terrorism. And the angered Muslims out there might want to stop thinking about their anger and start thinking about what prompted these commentaries. Because, you know, acting in the unflattering way your society has been depicted because you aren’t flattered by the way your society has been depicted really won’t bring much sympathy from the rest of the world.
You know, as bad as the U.S. as been in terms of its hypocrisy, I still know of no other nation in the world where its citizens (and sometimes, members of its own government) are willing to look to themselves if blame is to be assigned.
I’m sorry if this comes out as extremist (and it could just simply be my own lack of exposure, and certainly this bad news day doesn’t help), but when I read of any nation (not just Islamic) having problems with foreign policy, it’s always the other nation’s fault. And COMPLETELY the other nation’s fault.
That’s simply not rational thinking, but I don’t think the radical Muslims see this.
To those people who think the West is on a campaign to destroy your way of life and annihilate your entire race (and if you don’t think it, I’m obviously not talking about you — you and I have no problems), I’d like to give a response, if I may (and by all means, fellow posters, take issue with me if I don’t speak for you):
We don’t hate Islam. We don’t hate Islamists. It’s not about the fact that you’re Islamic to US. It’s about the fact that you’re Islamic to YOU.
(And here’s the part where I’m going to be hypocritical – I just took the Denmark press to task for this, but, in for a penny …)
We hate crazy people. We hate people who take no responsibility for their own actions. We hate people who think specifically targetting innocent people for maiming and murder is a valid form of political expression. We hate the people who kidnap citizens off the streets, who throw grenades into schools, who will throw fleeing girls back into a burning building to retrieve their veils, who hijack planes out of the air, and we hate those who do all those things, or approve of those who do them, and have the unmitigated GALL to considered themselves the repressed.
We hate when people are butchered and condemned to poverty by their own leaders, leaders who manage campaigns of hatred from the safety of their palaces, who are willing to hide among you when their actions promote international response, making you collateral damage in fights you had nothing to do with. We hate that you think these leaders love you, and that you must defend their “honor” in ways that are dishonorable.
We hate that you continue to do these things, when it’s obvious that it doesn’t make things better for anyone, including yourself. You still don’t get the things you want. You actually get LESS respect in the world than before. We hate the fact that you do these things, not for a purpose, but out of spite.
We hate the facts. You hate US.
Are the West blameless in your problems? Probably not. But a lot of your problems with the global landscape are more geo-political than personal, and while the West have contributed to it, it’s more about the nature of economics and our successes rather than a deliberate, targetted campaign. The world scope is so complex that it could not even have been PLANNED, much less manipulated with any real precision.
Not to mention that many of your own cultual decisions have, by conscious choice, limited the intellectual resources of your people, making it difficult for you to compete with the rest of the world. I mean, is there a single problem you have that is completely your own fault?
And speaking of hatred as official policy: the last world leader we had that made the extermination of another race into a political agenda is currently considered the most villified individual in history (funny, although he probably hated you, he thought a lot like you). Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Khaled Meshaal deserve to be seen more charitably? Besides the fact that “they’re on your side,” what makes these men any better than Hitler?
But believe me, quite a few of us have our OWN issues with our boss and how he attacked Iraq. We’re angry when our governments sponsor thugs for political office merely to support policy (some of the leaders you are so attached to were recipients of these “concessions”). We’re angry when our governments turn a blind eye to corporations that abuse child labor, and are in turn abused by immoral Boards of Directors that loot the savings of honest people. We’re angry, not just that we were lied to, but that many people have suffered and died who may not have had to.
You know why we have regret? Because we have compassion for people who aren’t us. It doesn’t excuse our actions. We acknowledge the rights of innocent people to exist without repression. A forum is necessary for righteous grievances, even when we’re the guilty party.
But many of you have little compassion for anyone, not just of other races, but among your people. And you have NO excuse for that. You vocally ANNOUNCE that you deny others’ right to exist. You do not allow any forum for your sins against the rest of the world, although you’ll proclaim far and wide about everyone else’s failings.
Why are you so surprised, then, that we have to make our own forum against you?
And in these forums, the people of the world (including the media of Denmark, who have little to do with you and therefore little bias to manipulate their perspective) are trying to show that they have little patience for such inconsiderate behavior.
But you, apparently, have even less.
But if your methods are so condonable, then I ask you this: what does it say about the “Western Evil” in that we don’t use your own tactics against you? More importantly, what do you think would happen if we did?
To be completely, 100 % blunt: Stop acting like a bunch of spoiled, childlike, tantrum-throwing narcissists. Grow up. You live in the world you live in. Starting making the best of it, because the rest of the human race isn’t going away, and we shouldn’t have to.
If you want change in the world, then that’s fine. But start by trying to make things BETTER. Or, at least, stop trying to deliberately make things WORSE.
And so far, the single worst thing you’re doing is this: you’re making the world find it harder and harder not to hate a bunch of people who may share the same race as you, but have nothing to do with you. And you’re undermining any potential friends that these people could make, until the only people they will even be able to go to is you.
Found this link posted elsewhere this morning: Depictions of Mohammed
It’s ALOT of pictures, so be warned if you’re on dial-up. I think it includes the cartoons that everybody’s making a fuss over.
Either way, they’re getting pissy over a cartoon of Mohammed (I haven’t looked at them), and they expect the world to follow their view and belief of self-censorship.
Sorry, but that doesn’t fly in my book.
“But if your methods are so condonable, then I ask you this: what does it say about the “Western Evil” in that we don’t use your own tactics against you? More importantly, what do you think would happen if we did?”
To play devil’s advocate:
It says that the “Western Evil” is weak, and lazy, and doesn’t have the courage of its convictions and is “sick” and crumbling (that’s how they see it at least)
“What would happen if we did?”
Large tracts of the Middle East would be smoking, glowing, un-inhabitable craters. We have nukes, and if we were to use terrorist tactics, we’d have used them long ago. “What’s that, the Ayatollah took American hostages? Nuke ’em!”
Your diatribe is meaningless to them, in their eyes (much like in Dubya’s vacant stare), GOD is on their side!
They are the oppressed, fighting against the “Western Evil”. THEY are the in the right in their eyes. And as far as their actions “undermining and potential friends those of the same race” could make, that’s part of the point.
If they can make “Westerners” hate others whose only conection to the terrorists is that they happen to be the same race (American Taliban or Timothy McVeigh anyone?)(Well, the only person who can “make” you hate anyone is YOU), then that marginalizes those non-terrorists, and when they find the “Westerners” have turned against them solely based on race, it makes the whole American “All people are individuals and equal” into a HUGE LIE and drives them into the embracing (and probably bøøbÿ-ŧráppëd) arms of the terrorists, who use that hatred as a recruiting tool.
“If you want change in the world, then that’s fine. But start by trying to make things BETTER. Or, at least, stop trying to deliberately make things WORSE.”
THey don’t see it as making the world worse, they see it as battling to make the world better, in THEIR God’s vision.
The people who share the same race but aren’t on their side are generally viewed as traitors, and you know the standard, even American, punishment for Treason, right?
Bladestar, you illustrated the primary problem with the “true believer” mentality. Once you’re convinced that God is on your side because you’ve found the secret handshake into heaven AND that everyone else is not just misguided, but evil and a tool of the devil, you can justify any sort of action no matter how heinous.
This type of mentality was common in Europe during the middle ages and resulted in the crusades and the inquisition. For the most part, western civlization has moved away from this way of thinking and has accepted tolerance of a diversity of thinking as keystone for a just and free society*. Unfortunately, this mode of thinking is still common enough in the middle east to make all the “democracy is the march” rhetoric meaningless. Failure to acknowledge this mentality lead to what happened last week: Absolute shock on the part of Condi Rice that a terrorist organization could win an election over control of the Palestinian Authority.
*There are, of course, exceptions to this even in our society.
Plus, we have to remember that the Islamists are mad, not just because of the commentary, but because of the depiction of Mohammed, which is completely forbidden in their culture. To use one of their sacred symbols in such a fashion isn’t critical commentary — it IS an insult, and insensitivity like that isn’t going to make things better.
It is but so what? They have made it almost impossible to NOT insult them. I would be more sympathetic if their rules applied to all but they feel free to mock Jews and Christians in the vilest ways possible–the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was made into a miniseries, blood drinking rabbis and all–so they lose the right to be outraged.
When it gets to the point where, if the reports are true, the Egyption governemnet refused to allow Israel to help locate the victims of last night’s ferry disaster…good lord. They’d rather die than risk being saved by a Jew. This is beyond simple hatred; it borders on psychosis.
So far only the NEw York Sun has printed a few of the cartoons but there are rumors that the LA Times is planning to. I’d love to see an effort by blogs to show them but it would have to be massive–I don’t want someone like PAD to do it and become a target. If everyone does it…well, they can’t kill us all.
According to Michelle Malkin, who has been all over this, ABC News and Fox have shown some of the cartoons but CNN and NBC specifically said they would not, out of fear of insulting Muslims. My ášš.
Meanwhile, a painting of Osama Bin Laden as Christ has made some Christians so angry they (issued a Fatwa? Bombed a mosque? Attacked an Arab) wrote letters complaining about it. The differences couldn’t be more obvious. (And hey, kudos to the artist. How edgy!)
Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.
Bah. To be bold and daring, publish a few cartoons of Mohammod. Then watch your country get bucotted, your people threatened and a former president of the United States leave you out to dry.
And now a current US administration as well.
[shakes head]
You know, all things considered, its nice to have something that both sides of the aisle can agree on for a change even if it does mean having a bunch of jihadii raging at us.