Over at the movie theater in Manhattan at 42nd and 8th, I was fascinated to see pickets with people marching around, protesting “The DaVinci Code,” declaring it to be an insult to the Catholic church.
I wonder what would have happened if I’d walked up to them and asked them if they were out protesting with great ire over the way that Jews were portrayed in “Passion of the Christ.” After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right? So were they marching to protest what many felt to be a profound anti-Semitic message in “Passion?” Or were they too busy filling theaters with their church groups?
I wonder if such an observation from myself would have resulted in my being with Christian charity?
PAD
• 
Personally I think most religions should be dumped into the bin by reason of the over used, “Any club that would have me as a member…”. If the Christains or Moslems had anything of value they wouldn’t be trying to give it away to every passerby. At least in this respect the Jews have some self-respect and seem to discourage most from even trying to marry into the religion. Like a good marriage they’re trying to keep the mystery alive. 😉
As to the wack-jobs out picketing the movie; it’s best you walk on as they seem prone to casting stones before they turn the other cheek.
I could go on for a couple of hours espousing theories I have come up with during on this hoopla. I was raised Catholic and some of the things I was taught don’t make sense. Also, some of the ideas presented ( like Jesus being married)I would like to be true. I think it adds to the credibility of his message.
I read the book((found the paperback cheap) and had an opportunity to see the movie ( since someone else was paying, why not?) The book was a pleasant read and if you read to the very end actually let the Church off the hook. The movie did too even more so.
The protesting folks obviously haven’t actually read the book or seen the film (they never do).
There weren’t any protesters at the theatre I attended, but I had my answere ready.
“I was raised Catholic. It’s a Movie! I’ll tell you what you have always told Star Trek Fans!
Get a LIFE!”
Posted by Bill Myers
Actually, that’s a good analogy and one that makes my point for me. Many vegans aren’t satisfied with simply eschewing meat themselves; they feel they must prevent the rest of us from doing so. Devout Catholics, like most religionists, believe that you will go to Hëll if you don’t believe as they do. Which is why the Catholic Church tries to put pressure on Catholic politicians in the executive and legistlative branches to enshrine Catholic doctrine in civil policy.
We’re entering into one of those areas where I need to consult with Someone Who Knows This Stuff For A Living, but IIRC that’s not true of Catholics. You don’t go to Hëll because of failing to do something (like failure to be a Catholic)…you go because of something you actively did. Plus, it has to be a fairly heavy sin, plus you have to be both aware of the severity of the action and unrepentant. Subtle point, but there it is.
I also think that the Church trying to make Catholic doctrine into civil policy is incorrect. There are no shortage of examples of the Church making it clear that they don’t like a certain law or policy (opposing everything from capital punishment to same-sex marriage) but I also know that more than once, JP II beat up a few bishops when they pushed that button too hard. It would certainly be inaccurate to suggest that they regard politics as part of their mission, as many in the Christian Right do.
(But again…this is the point where I’d email some Jesuit friends of mine.)
I’m not sure how that’s any different than what I’m saying. Devout Catholics (the ones who accept the “whole package”) believe their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation, and that those who don’t share their faith are misguided at best. By that logic, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll become a Catholic. And to be a good Catholic, you can’t question Catholic doctrine, but instead must accept all of it.How is that not attacking the concept of free thought?
How can that be interpreted as an attack? They’re not suppressing other opinions…they’re just refusing to support them as articles of Catholic faith. They’re saying that if you want to play baseball, don’t show up with a hockey stick. They’re not trying to forcibly take away your stick and put a bat in your hand.
Also, devout Catholics in particular wouldn’t believe that their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation. Jesus died and redeemed our sins (according to the playbook)…meaning, we’re already Saved, even the non-Catholics.
I believe that kind of thinking is what’s led the Catholic Church to commit grievous sins throughout the ages, like punishing Galileo for making scientific discoveries that contradicted Church doctrine, the oppression of non-Catholics through the Spanish Inquisition, and the cover-ups that let priests get away with molesting children (and while I acknowledge that the scope of the problem is open to debate, I don’t think the existence of the problem is equally open). Any organization that advocates a belief system that is not open to question is, in my view, inevitably going to corrupt itself.
Mmm…Galileo was put on trial 400 years ago, and the first Crusade was 900 years ago. Plus, in 1100, the Papacy was a political entity, and the situation with Galileo was complicated. Copernicus wasn’t jailed when he put forth a heliocentric theory 100 years earlier…in fact, cardinals had been encouraging him to run with the idea.
The Church’s longtime coverup of sexual abuse is a sin that they’ll be paying for for decades to come (rightly so). The only thing that mitigates their reaction (albeit in a trivial sense) is the fact that for most of the 20th century, most of society had the same absurd attitude towards the problem. Child molesters were creepy weirdos, strangers…not relatives, not teachers, and certainly not the parish priest. Of course, they’re still on the hook for believing that molesters could be “cured” through therapy and prayer.
When I think of the problem of having to take all of Catholic doctrine as a unit and the Pope having the final, incontrovertible say, I think of the Church’s continued opposition to contraception, even in light of the recent (by Catholic standards) development of AIDS…a fatal, epidemic disease whose most effective enemy (apart from abstinence) is a condom. Millions of preventable deaths, yet the Pope sticks to its guns. Nonetheless, it’s not hard to find priests and bishops openly discussing their desire to change this doctrine.
I did read an interesting analysis of the selection of this Pope, though: a longtime observer hypothesized that the reason why the Cardinals elected such an elderly Pontiff was to grease the rails for some fairly major changes in doctrine. The theory is that they intentionally chose a Pope who was (a) part of JP II’s school, and (b) elderly. So Benedict XVI sits for ten or fifteen years, influenced by JP II’s thinking but not strictly following it, and the next Pope they select will be able to make some broader changes. And it’ll be a young guy, like JP was when he was elected.
Conjecture, I know…but as “Could Superman beat Thor?” debates go, it’s a good one.
You remember how, a couple of months ago, there was that big flap over the editorial cartoon of the prophet Mohammad, and all of the Islamic nations got really pìššëd øff about it? Remember how the essentially Christian West’s reaction to it was more or less “Get over it, it was just a cartoon”?
Ah, irony. How I wish there was a well-recognized Islamic spokesman that could go up to one of those Billy Graham types and say “Get over it, it was just a movie!”
There’s a fairly significant difference between marchers holding signs and riots that leave hundreds dead or homeless. Don’t you think?
And actually, THE DA VINCI CODE is causing even more protests overseas–wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the same muslim countries ban it entirely.
“After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right?”
Well, not necessarily. But I think that you do make a fair point here.
So tell me, given your concern about what you consider to be the anti-Semitic themes in “The Passion of the Christ” and your statement that people who feel that their religion is “ill-used” in the cinema should support each other, how are you choosing to support those who believe that “The DaVinci Code” is an attack on their faith? What did you do to support those who protested “The Last Temptation of Christ”? Both movies have a lot of people who sincerely feel that they are amazingly insensitive to Christianity. As someone who was offended by “The Passion”, I know you must have some compassion for those who feel offended by these films.
I may not be in complete agreement with you here, but I’m interested in hearing how you personally are living up to your standard.
Thank you in advance for any insight you can provide. It’s appreciated.
One thing that hasn’t come up from anyone who’s seen the movie.
Is it any good?
I’m not talking about theocratic, historic or any other kind of accuracy here. Is it a good way to spend a couple hours strapped to a bucket of popcorn with a bag of M & M’s next to you? One review I saw on one of the channels said it was incredibly dry with nothing much happening, but I thought that was kind of like wanting to see a Mike Hammer movie and going to see Holmes and Watson instead. (Personally, as much of a classic detective movie fan as I am, I’d STILL rather see a good Holmes flick than some of the garbage mysteries that come out lately. Topic for another time) Seems like the media has jumped on the 14-year old boy/girl bandwagon. If the movie attempts any depth, doesn’t have HUGE effects and/or stars, they trash it. Heaven forBID the public be forced to THINK in a movie.
Conjecture, I know…but as “Could Superman beat Thor?” debates go, it’s a good one.
And the answer is no… Thor has a magic hammer which Supes is allergic to. So no.
Which is a more important debate anyway.
-T
Rat,
I hadn’t read the book before I saw the movie on Saturday, so I didn’t really have any preconceived notion of what to expect in terms of the excitement level of the story.
2 1/2 hours later, I was mildly disappointed. The most interesting parts of the movie were the puzzles (which were probably more intriguing in the book) and Ian McKellen (who will probably be more entertaining in X-3). The character of Langdon is about as deep as a puddle in the Mojave, and the only empathy the viewer lends towards him comes courtesy of Tom Hanks being Tom Hanks.
As far as the actual mystery is concerned, everything dovetails too neatly by the end of the film (again, I can’t speak for the book since I haven’t read the book). The plot twists that exist aren’t too terribly surprising and the story could have benefitted from some more convincing red herrings.
All in all, DaVinci isn’t a -bad- movie (and would probably be worth a rental when you can watch it from the comfort of your own sofa), but as a summer blockbuster, it isn’t really that blockbustery.
Personally, as much of a classic detective movie fan as I am, I’d STILL rather see a good Holmes flick than some of the garbage mysteries that come out lately. Topic for another time)
try “Tell Them Johnny Wadd Is Here”
I’ve also been picketing Da Vinci Code on religious grounds, for its less-than-stellar use of screen angel Audrey Tautou.
As far as the protest part, I don’t know why people are getting so hepped up about it. That old saw has been around since Christ left. Why start getting worked up about it now just because it’s been novelized into pop culture?
Haven’t seen the movie yet but, given the reviews, I’ll probably wait for DVD.
I did, however, read the book.
The book was entertaining enough and it read much like an early Grisham novel- in other words, like a movie. It was a bit dragging in parts from what I can remember but not a novel to fling against the wall in disgust because it bored you so. Still I think it was worth reading.
I can see how the puzzle parts might not translate as well into movie format. But hopefully it will make the scenery better than Brown conveyed in his novel.
Oh and I heard aside from Magneto/Gandulf Mckellan, Bently gave a good turn as well. Bizzarely sexy from what a friend said. (Apparently Mckllan thought so too!)
You know, I have never understood the thinking behind the whole “Jews are responsible for killing Christ” thing in any context (and I’m not speaking of Gibson’s movie, because I haven’t seen it, but in general).
If you are a Christian, don’t you have to believe that Jesus’s death was ordained by God? It had to happen, didn’t it? If Jesus had died peacefully in his bed at the age of 95… it wouldn’t quite be the same sacrifice, would it? So if you believe that, then how can you lay responsibility on any individual or group of mortals for something that God ordained?
It also doesn’t make sense in terms of blaming an entire ethnic/religious group of people for what at most a few hundred who were alive and present at the time in the “crowd” (though it could be merely the “chief priests”) were responsible for down through the centuries. Christianity doesn’t seem to support this “genetic guilt” in any other context. Rome unquestionably executed Peter and Paul, and I don’t hear charges of their deaths ringing down through the centuries against descendants of Rome.
I understand the historical development of anti-semitism and how it’s been used throughout the centuries for political and religious propaganda… but still. The “crime” underlying it all is Jesus’s death, and blaming all Jews ever for that doesn’t make any sense, not logically, historically or in terms of theology.
Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like.
I’ve been reading Exodus by Leon Uris. I find it an interesting novel laying out the history of anti-semitism and the Jewish race making their way back home to Palestine. Really enjoying it, though the nazi-germany parts sicken me all over again.
This is a Web site from someone I know who has converted to Catholicism, and has, shall we say strong opinions on DaVinci as do many of her fellow posters. You have to search for May 17-18 I believe:
http://www.dawneden.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
“Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like.”
Feel that it is indeed no one’s fault, not even the Romans, for the death of Christ but a persons’own sinful nature, that is.
“Most modern Christians do feel that way Lynn, despite what it looks like.”
You are referring to the idea that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus? And you know this….. how? You spend a lot of time with “modern Christians,” do you? You’ve surveyed a significant sampling of the modern Christian church and you’ve concluded statistically that this is true? Please post your research.
I would be willing to bet that on any given day, my contact with “modern Christians” of the most conservative bent is much more indepth than yours is. I have never heard or seen any demonstration of anything but todal respect for God’s chosen people, the Jews. So unless someone’s especially annointed you to speak for millions of people or you have some research to back up this incredibly outrageous claim, I would please respectfully ask you to limit your comments to things that you know about – like the contents of the movies being discussed. Alternatively, you could speak in specifics rather than generalities. You might come off as a bit less offensive that way.
Thanks.
Zeek,
Thank you for clarifying your statement. It’s appreciated. And I apologize if my words, which I thought were justified, caused you any concern or offense.
To all – I withdraw my previous statement. It was based on a misunderstanding. I apologize to all.
Thank you.
In comparing Christian reactions to “The Da Vinci Code” with Islamic reaction to editorial cartoons…
Maybe if Christians were turning over burning cars in the streets outside the theaters, you might be able to pull an analogy. But for a truly fair comparison, we need to have a world-wide theatrical release of “The Satanic Verses”, with just as much hype as has been given “The Da Vinci Code”.
uhh.. Tim? Yikes.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear on my previous post. I was replying to Lynn’s first questions on my initial response and later realized it might have come off the opposite of what I was intending to say!
Wasn’t offended anyway, just totally shocked.
Have to say I found The Da Vinci Code one of the most offensive books I’ve read. Not because of any pseudo-history nonsense, but because it really was a piece of appalling writing. I made sure I gave away my book to a friend (who gave up after the first ten pages), just so that she didn’t waste her money on it as well.
I’ve been trying to wash the taste out of my brain for months now and still haven’t succeeded. And the more I see the Da Vinci Code, the Magdalene Cypher, the Judas Diaries, the ‘I was the guy who delivered Jesus’ Baby’ Codex and so on saturating the shelves in all the local bookstores under the ‘If you liked The Da Vinci Code…’ banner, I don’t feel I can ever be free.
Now if only the protestors would shut up about it, a few less people might not be tempted to see what all the fuss is about and have their lives scarred like mine.
See now I didn’t think the book was that horrible. Not worth the hype and not a novel I’d rave over or read again, but readable.
::shrug::
I haven’t seen the Passion, though I’ve really meant to. I don’t know why people call it anti-Semitic, but then again I haven’t seen it. I am a Christain, and I’ve never heard a Christian blame “the Jews” for the death of Christ. Jesus was Jewish. Christianity effectivey begins with his death. Sure, the people in the crowd who called for Jesus’s death were, for the most part, Jews, but no part of Christianity I’m aware of blames the Jewish people as the cause of his death. The cause of his death was the sin in ALL mankind, no matter race, religion, sex, sexuality, or anything else. Christ died because people are sinful, all people. I certainly can’t imagine any real Christian blaming the Jews for the death of Christ.
As far as the Muslim firestorm over the depiction of Muhammad (sp?), I certainly don’t support their actions, but I also don’t support the actions of those who were drawing cartoons of Mohammad (sp?). I was unaware at the time that it considered such a horrible thing to Muslims to draw Muhammed (sp?), but with that knowledge, in deference to people who follow Islam, I personally would abstain from making depictions of him, but that’s just me trying to respect the religious choice of others. Which I believe is one of the principles America was founded on.
Iain, I had pretty much the same reaction when trying to read the book, though I got further than you did before giving up. And I usually have a pretty high tolerance for trash. It may be that I don’t have the time to read as many novels as I’d like and my patience has become limited. Still, there must be SOME reason why this book, among so many other far more worthy ones, became such a hit.
Josh, I’ve seen THE PASSION 3 times now and the accusation of anti-semitism rings hollow with me but there is no denying that this has been a very common thread in the minds of far too many Christians until fairly recently. As things stand now it’s some of the most conservative Christian groups that Israel counts among its most loyal allies but then again it wouldn’t be hard to look good when compared to the naziesque blood libles that are broadcast daily from Israel’s neighbors.
I’d have more or even some sympathy for the feelings of Muslims regarding the cartoons if it weren’t for the fact that disparaging (to say the least) cartoons of Chirstians and Jews are a common feature in Islamic countries, with nary a fuss raised.
It’s also debateable whether the taboo on depeictions of Mohammad is a recent development or not. Regardless, anyone who threatens the lives of cartoonists and experesses their displeasure by rioting, killing and burning is worth the exact and precise consideration that should be given any garden variety thug.
Before I address Andy Ihnatko directly, I want to confess that my earlier screeds against religion were in part a reaction to the excesses of religious people whom I have encountered in my life. And it’s probably not fair to bring that emotion to the debate. If I don’t like religionists belittling me and treating me like I’m foolish for not believing as they do, then it is hypocritcal of me to behave towards them in the same way.
If you are religious, then I most likely disagree with you passionately about a number of things. But that doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid.
Moreover, y’know that old saw about “I don’t like what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it?” Well, to me, the freedom to belong to a religious group and worship as one sees fit is one of the few things in this world worth dying for, should it come to that.
Now, my response to Andy…
Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 24, 2006 11:29 AM
I also think that the Church trying to make Catholic doctrine into civil policy is incorrect.
No, it’s not. The official stance of the Church is that members of the U.S. Congress, for example, have an obligation to vote in accordance with Catholic teachings when it comes to issues of “life or family.” In 2004, Pope John Paul II said, “I consider it opportune to recall that the legislator, and the Catholic legislator in particular, cannot contribute to the formulation or approval of laws contrary to ‘the primary and essential norms that regulate moral life’, the expressions of the highest values of the human person and proceeding in the last analysis from God, the Supreme Legislator.”
During the last U.S. Presidential election, many American Catholic officials made it equally clear that to remain a Catholic in good standing, legislators must vote in accordance with Catholic teachings on issues like abortion and gay marriage. So yes, the Catholic Church is indeed trying to have its teachings enshrined in civil law. They’re not the only culprits, mind you, but since we’re talking about the Catholic Church I thought I’d, y’know, talk about the Catholic Church and not the Branch Davidians.
How can that be interpreted as an attack? They’re not suppressing other opinions…they’re just refusing to support them as articles of Catholic faith. They’re saying that if you want to play baseball, don’t show up with a hockey stick. They’re not trying to forcibly take away your stick and put a bat in your hand.
No, that’s not quite what they’re saying. What they’re saying is that it’s wonderful to be Catholic, and you’ll be a lot happier if you’re Catholic, and oh, by the way, to be a Catholic you have to accept everything the Magisterium asserts as the truth.
The Catholic Church has been moving over the last decade-or-so to stifle dissent within its ranks. Just because such dissent is still occurring doesn’t mean they’re not trying to squelch it, any more than failed bank robbery attempts indicate a lack of desire on the part of the bank robber to commit robbery.
The problem is that the Church has been moving to include more and more things under the umbrella of “absolute truth” that they are diluting the term. Want an example? How about when Pope John Paul II declared infallible his declaration that women could not be priests?
To me, there is only One Truth in this world: that The Truth, if such a thing exists, could bite us in the ášš and we might not recongize it, so it’s best for us not to get too high-and-mighty.
Also, devout Catholics in particular wouldn’t believe that their faith is a requisite to achieving salvation. Jesus died and redeemed our sins (according to the playbook)…meaning, we’re already Saved, even the non-Catholics.
Not quite. Like any Christians, Catholics believe you must embrace Christ as your personal savior.
Mmm…Galileo was put on trial 400 years ago, and the first Crusade was 900 years ago. Plus, in 1100, the Papacy was a political entity, and the situation with Galileo was complicated. Copernicus wasn’t jailed when he put forth a heliocentric theory 100 years earlier…in fact, cardinals had been encouraging him to run with the idea.
Sigh… I was trying to show that problems within the Catholic Church are nothing new. Yes, the first two things I mentioned happened a long, long time ago, but just because something happened centuries ago doesn’t mean it’s not part of a pattern. I suppose I could have gone into all of the Church’s sins, except that the Church has been around a long, long time and I don’t think PAD wants me to use his blog to write a lengthy history of the church. This dámņ post is already too long!
I’m sorry, Andy, but creating straw men is a rhetorical tactic that irritates me. No, I didn’t mention a lot of the Church’s more recent sins. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Space is limited. Read some history books if you don’t believe my assertion that the Church has faltered many times throughout its history, and that such faltering is not limited to centuries-old misdeeds.
The only thing that mitigates their reaction (albeit in a trivial sense) is the fact that for most of the 20th century, most of society had the same absurd attitude towards the problem.
But the Church holds itself up as an institution that can elevate individuals and society to live more harmoniously with God. So, no, they don’t get to hide behind what the rest of society was doing at the time.
So Benedict XVI sits for ten or fifteen years, influenced by JP II’s thinking but not strictly following it, and the next Pope they select will be able to make some broader changes. And it’ll be a young guy, like JP was when he was elected.
Yes. John Paul II was a young guy when he was elected, and turned out to be a very conservative Pope who attempted to steer the Church back towards traditionalism. So if the Pope that succeeds Benedict is a relatively young one, that’s no guarantee that he’ll be more liberal.
Conjecture, I know…but as “Could Superman beat Thor?” debates go, it’s a good one.
Oops, forgot to edit out the last line of my prior post. That last statement about Superman vs. Thor was Andy’s, not mine!
Oops, forgot one more thing: thanks, Andy Ihnatko, for an interesting an intellectually stimulating debate. We differ greatly on a lot of issues, but I’m very much enjoying our exchanges.
How about when Pope John Paul II declared infallible his declaration that women could not be priests?
Bill, is this, strictly speaking, accurate? The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which decreed that the Church lacked the authority to ordain women, was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium, so it cannot be considered infallible in and of itself. Infallibility is poorly understood, not least of all by myself.
Hey, is anyone else wierded out by those amp’d mobile ads where someone starts telling people to fight each other or play the piano with their face and they all go and do it? It’s like a glimpse into some scary mutant world where evil jean grey’s are terrorizing the average human for their own amusement.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 24, 2006 07:47 PM
Bill, is this, strictly speaking, accurate? The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which decreed that the Church lacked the authority to ordain women, was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium, so it cannot be considered infallible in and of itself. Infallibility is poorly understood, not least of all by myself.
Well, I thought it was accurate, else I’d not have said it. I remember reading that the Pope had declared his writings on that issue to be infallible. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
Shìŧ. Are you gonna hound me and make me check my every fact for accuracy? I mean, how crappy is that? This is the Internet age! I shouldn’t have to know things to be able to talk about them!
(Note to literalists: above paragraph was treated with patent-pending “sarcasmatron,” a unique polymer chain that both drenches words in irony and also prevents underbody rust.)
Sigh. I suppose now I’ll have to look this up. One more thing to add to my “to do” list…
Curse you, Bill Mulligan. Curse you.
Oh, one other thing — isn’t “Sacerdotalis” Latin for testicles or something? Shame on you for debasing this topic, Bill Mulligan.
(The above paragraph was treated with “Rediculos,” a unique blend of carbonite and vibranium alloys that makes seriousness bead up and slip right off of your words.)
Well wiki is no dámņ help at all— “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement, and so is not considered infallible in itself. There is, however, a case for its contents to be infallible under the ordinary magisterium, as this doctrine has been held consistently by the Church.”
Huh?
Also– “The teachings of the ordinary magisterium are non-infallible. Such teachings are generally correct, as they are based on infallible Sacred Tradition, infallible Sacred Scripture, and the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. But some errors can be found within the ordinary teachings of the magisterium, and therefore, such teachings are reformable and revocable.”
So…huh?
Actually, that makes a bit of sense to me. Think of it this way: the ordinary magisterium itself is not inherently infallible. But some teachings of the ordinary magisterium are based on other sources that are considered infallible.
Here’s another way to think abou it. Let’s say you, Mr. Mulligan the Science Teacher, tell Student A to tell Student B he’s in trouble. Is Student B in trouble because Student A said so? No. Student B is in trouble because you said so. Student A doesn’t have the authority to decide who is or is not in trouble. But Student A is nevertheless correct because he’s repeating what you said.
It’s scary that that makes sense to me. Especially because I passionately reject the idea that any teachings written by Man are infallible, even if said teachings are said to be inspired by God.
If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There’s always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.
If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There’s always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.
If Wiki is no help in your argument, change it. (Wiki that is, not your argument). There’s always a small chance your revisionism will be accepted on its face.
Bill Myers: Besides, I’m a little skeptical about the veracity of anything I see on Fox News.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but is there any reason they’d have a motive for a slant on that particular story? How would saying that Hayes didn’t really quite SP for the ostensible reason tie into their right-wing bias? I mean, if they reported that it was going to rain, or that the sky was blue, would you discount that automatically, even without explaining how there is a right-wing motive there? 🙂
Even if someone has been proven to have a bias, not everything single thing they say is the opposite of the truth.
What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.
Like this one: http://www.scientomogy.com/southpark_scientology_chef.php.
Or this one (which starts off with a reference to FOX’s story, but corroborates it via Tennessee’s Action 5 News): http://www.moxiegrrrl.com/2006/03/salon-reports-isaac-hayes-may-not-have.html.
Or this one: http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/south-park/isaac-hayes-may-have-quit-south-park-by-his-own-notfree-will-161708.php.
Bill Myers: I’ve seen statements from Isaac Hayes that make it explicitly clear that he quit South Park because of their “religious intolerance.” Moreover, his threshold for their “religious intolerance” wasn’t exceeded until the Scientology episode.
Luigi Novi: Statements which may have not been made by him, but his Scientologist handlers, which is what you’d expect them to say, given when his “threshold” was breached. It’s possible that Hayes is a hypocrite. It’s possible that others are speaking for him. (Admittedly, perhaps referring to this explanation as the “real story” was premature.)
I wonder what would have happened if I’d walked up to them and asked them if they were out protesting with great ire over the way that Jews were portrayed in “Passion of the Christ.”
I don’t think people have enough room in their heads for more than one point of view. If they even attempted to see the world from another person’s perspective, their heads would implode.
Also, I think the #1 biggest reason that Christians didn’t protest on Jews’ behalf at anti-Semitism in the Passion is because most Christians wouldn’t recognize anti-Semitism unless it involved an image of a swastika or some direct reference to the Holocaust.
So while Jews are protesting the film, many Christians are thinking to themselves, “What are you talking about? I didn’t see any swasticas.” It’s not that I think Christians are unfamiliar with persecution–and I certainly don’t think they are stupid, (although it might appear that way with the example I used, which was meant to be an exaggeration). I think they are unfamiliar with the rhetoric that has been used to alienate Jews, and how threatened Jews feel when encountered with the possibility of alienation. Why do the Christians not see this? Because they are not Jewish.
Different identities implies different forms of identification. Christians see the world through Christian eyes, Jews see the world through Jewish eyes. When Christians see that Jews are having problems, they first attempt to identify with Jews as Christians. And then, failing that and if they care enough, they might make the effort to see through Jewish eyes. And vice versa, of course.
I think one of the big problems in society is that people refuse to see the world from any point of view other than their own. The way we identify (or don’t identify) with one another shapes the world we live in.
Christianity (like other religions) exists in certain historical circumstances. During most of its existance christianity existed in a society that was not pluralistic, was not open minded to different ideas, was racist (and antisemitic), accepted the idea of collective guilt (of the Jews), resented the Jews for rejecting Jesus, supressed points of view inside christianity that were different from an official position, accepted social institutions we today find wrong such as tyranny, torture, inequality, and slavery, and of course believed that whoever does not accept the truth went to hëll.
Today, in western society at least, these ideas were rejected (more or less), and Christianity adapted to these changes. Today the catholic establishment is more interested in cooperating with other denominations and religions against secularism that supressing them, and antisemitism is no longer promoted in Church teachings. However, this is a recent development, and is not without difficulty. This is why the idea of female priests is still not accepted (in Catholism), and evolution is still rejected, while Galileo, protestants and Jews are accepted.
I think that if you showed the Passion of the Christ to a medieval European audience, or even a 19th century audience (certainly in Eastern Europe), they would have taken it for granted that it contains a negative image of Jews. Today this is not the case, at least in the US (although some associations die hard, like an Italian cartoon showing the Israeli armi going into Bethlehem with Jesus asking: are they going to kill me again?). The Jews who protested about this movie (was there actual protest?) should have put more faith that (most of) American society will not see an antisemitic message in this movie, or at least should have kept their ammunition to situations where antisemitism is obvious.
Still, there are several aspects of the Passion that require notice. (1) It was a religious event both for its makers and viewers. It was created to stir religious feelings. (2) It was made by a man belonging to a sect that rejects some of the adaptations Catholism had to make in recent years. (3) I don’t know about Mel Gibson, but his father is an antisemite. It would be unfair towards Mel Gibson to assume hat heis also antisemitic, but it is relevant to the discussion.
About Da Vinci Code. If the Catholic critics of this movie are angry because it presents a wrong version of Christianity, than they are wrong, both because they no longer have a monopoly on Christianity and because it is only a work of fiction.
If they are angry because of the negative portrail of Catholism than they may have a better case (I don’t remember how negative was the image of the Church in the book, haven’t seen the movie). However it seems to be that Catholism is getting more criticism from other places, and this hardly seems a serious case.
If their concern is that the false information on the Church is used to promote a negative image of Catholicism (much like the [false] Protocols of the elders of Zion are used to promote a negative image of Jews), than they also may have a case. However, I think Jewish fears of the resurgence of antisemitism are probasbly more justified than fear of hatred of catholics. Antisemitism seems closer to the surface in today’s society than hatred of catholics, although both have existed in not so distant history. But I could be wrong.
Concerning the guilt of Jews see Matthew 27:22-25
What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23″Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
Posted by: Micha at May 25, 2006 07:52 AM
Micha, as usual, you’ve done a good job of elevating the discussion and educating us.
My girlfriend’s parents are recent converts to Catholicism. They have enthusiastically embraced the Church because the hard-line conservatism of Pope John Paul II appealed to them. They are among a vocal segment of Catholicism that wants to return to tradition. They’re not big fans of the ecumenical movement. And Catholic doctrine still does assert that non-Catholic Christians are heretics.
That said, you are correct that Catholics today cooperate with other Christian sects far more than ever before, having banded together in the fight against secularism. To me, this is minor progress at best. They are still opposed to diversity and freedom of thought. Their tactics have changed and become more civilized as society has come to reject barbaric practices of old, but their goals remain very much the same.
Regarding the anti-semitism, or lack thereof, in The Passion of the Christ, I think Peter’s analogy holds up regardless of whether you think Mel Gibson’s movie was anti-semitic. After all, Peter’s rhetorical question was, “After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right?” (Emphasis mine.)
Many Jews felt that The Passion of the Christ was anti-semitic. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church responded by accusing some Jewish groups of trying to poison the relationship between the two religions. Now the Catholic Church feels that The DaVinci Code is ill-using their religion. Perhaps they have more of a claim than the Jews protesting The Passion of the Christ, and perhaps not. But the fact is that in both cases, the people involved cared because they felt ill-used.
Alan Dershowitz once said you’re not truly a friend of the First Amendment unless you’re willing to defend someone’s right to defend an idea you find repugnant. He suggested that a Jew who truly loves freedom of speech would defend the right of neo-nazis to demonstrate in their town, for example. I suppose that, conversely, a Catholic who truly loves the First Amendment should support Hollywood’s right to make movies like The DaVinci Code, however they may personally feel about it.
It’s something worth thinking about. I’m betting each and every one of us has our own “sacred cows.” When it’s someone else’s cow that’s threatened, they’re whiners; when it’s our cow, it’s injustice.
Peter, it just occurred to me that citing Alan Dershowitz’s example of what he felt a Jew might do to demonstrate a commitment to freedom of speech might look like I’m singling out Jews. If that’s how it came off, I’m sorry. I was simply using the example Dershowitz himself used in a newspaper column he wrote about 20 years ago. I used Catholics in my own example to balance things out, but I didn’t know if that was clear.
Because, y’know, I’m aware that you’re Jewish, and I’m aware that you’ve demonstrated your commitment to the First Amendment by your actions. I didn’t want you to think I was telling you what you need to do to support free speech. You’re an undisputed leader in that fight.
Thanks Bill
“Alan Dershowitz once said you’re not truly a friend of the First Amendment unless you’re willing to defend someone’s right to defend an idea you find repugnant. He suggested that a Jew who truly loves freedom of speech would defend the right of neo-nazis to demonstrate in their town, for example.”
True.
However if someone presents a view one disagrees with, at the same time that he must accept his or her right to voice that view, it is also his right, or even duty, to speak out against that view. So, if Catholics dislike the message of Da Vinci Code, they are within their right in speaking against it, but not if they try to supress it.
The question is: should we speak against it because it presents a negative image of Catholicism?
I think not. For three reasons:
1) In so far at it promotes a false version of Christian doctrine it is not my job to protect an orthodox doctrine of that religion (or any). In any case,the Church can set records straight on matters of doctrine.
2) In so far as it promotes a false history it is in the interest of historians to set the record straight. It is the risk of people learning history from Holywood. The American Historical Review has a section reviewing historical movies.
3) In so far as the movie portrays a negative image of Catholicism, Catholics, or Opus Dei, I don’t think there is a major risk of anti-Catholic feelings being inflamed by the movie. Catholics are certainly capable of dealing with any fair or unfair criticism. In any case, I’ve seen worst as far as criticism of catholicism is concerned. Have you seen a movie called “Sister Mary Tells All”?
With the Passion the main concern was not that it insults Judaism or even Jews as much as it might arouse or encourage Antisemitic sentiments. To me it seems that this was likely to arouse antisemitism only where antisemitism already existed, so that most Americans were not at great risk relatively.
evolution is still rejected,
Micha, I would take exception to this–evolution is openly embraced by the Catholic church (to the point of really angering creationists) as well as the majority of mainstream Protestant branches.
I would also argue that Gibson;s father’s idiotic views are irrelevant, just as the views of Dan Brown’s father would be. (not that anyone is asking about Dan Brown’s fathers views, or even Dan Brown’s, as far as I can see).
I seriously doubt that either anti-semitism or anti-Catholicism will enjoy a great resurgence in this country, though it depends on the venue. There are still pockets of both among the ignorant. Among the so called intelligence you will raise nary an eyebrow with bigoted anti Catholic statements as long as they are wrapped up in the appropriate armor of political correctness. Attacking Jews is trickier, what with the urge not to look too much like a nazi; you need to emphasize that it isn’t Jews you hate per se, just Israel (the country full of Jews).
Bill, it seems to me that the most consistent and best policy (since the two are not always the same) would be to disagree with BOTh Jews and Catholics who condemned either or both movies, especially sight unseen.
I imagine what also angers some of these protestors is the hypocrisy that allows any anti-catholic movie to be made but encourages the ban on doing the same to Islam. Personally, I think they are going after the wrong target, I don’t want to see Christianity and Judaism fall into the same trap that too much of the Muslim world has.
What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.
I’m sorry?
Unless I’m mistaken, Luigi, and this comment was made by somebody else but I don’t think that’s the case, YOU are the one who posted the Fox story, so why should WE have to corroborate it?
And I went to the Action News 5 website for your “corroboration”. What a joke. They say in their article that they confirm that Hayes had a stroke, and that they’ll “keep you posted as new information becomes availible.”
Yet, there is not a single article on their site following up on this. I think that means that there’s no new information because it was a bunk story.
So, I’m curious, should I believe Fox News, or a comment attributed to Hayes’s spokeswoman?
Should I believe Fox News, or wonder about the fact that NOBODY ELSE picked up on this? And don’t give me this “it just flew under the radar” garbage because celebrities are like magnets in this country, and nothing happens to any of ’em without somebody hearing about it and everybody reporting it.
Hayes just had a kid in the last couple of weeks, and that was reported in an AP article on the Action News 5 site. Amusingly enough, the article says he quite South Park because of Scientology. Nothing about his supposed stroke.
C’mon, Luigi, you’re smarter than this.
Ordinarily Mel Gibson’s father’s views would be irrelevant but:
1) The person in question is a leading member of a small conservative Christian sect.
2) He does not only have private antisemtic views, he promotes them vocally. And I think he does it as a leader in said sect.
3) Mel Gibson is a member of the same sect.
4) In making the movie Mel Gibson was acting as a religious man executing a religious duty, so his religious beliefs, and those of the sect he belongs to are relevant.
5) The source Gibson used for the movie is said to be antisemitic.
However, I am not saying that he is an antisemite. I don’t know. But I am not certain he’s not either. I think this is a relevant question with regard to this movie. It is not relevant with regard to Braveheart.
It would have been nice if Mel said something like: I love my father but I disagree with some of his opinions.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 25, 2006 09:39 AM
Bill, it seems to me that the most consistent and best policy (since the two are not always the same) would be to disagree with BOTh Jews and Catholics who condemned either or both movies, especially sight unseen.
Oh, agreed: no one should be condemning any work of art they haven’t seen. If you haven’t seen it, how can you claim to understand it?
I think Micha has a great point, though: you should support the right of someone to express, free of government interference, a viewpoint you find repugnant. If, however, your conscience tells you said viewpoint is repugnant, well, then, you probably should argue against that viewpoint in favor of your own.
It’s a tricky tightrope to walk when you feel passionately about a philosophical or moral issue. Ideally, you should try to persuade others to adopt your point of view, rather than attempt to bully them into it. On the other hand, if you feel that abortion is murder, how can you in all good conscience walk by an abortion clinic and not want to protest?
I think the trick is to recognize that certain moral issues can be agreed upon by all (for example, walking up to someone at random and shooting them is, I think, universally accepted as a no-no by all thinking people), and are therefore fair game for legislation. Abortion, gay marriage, and the resurgence of 70s fashions are less clear-cut, and therefore perhaps better left to individuals.
By the way, I hope you don’t think I’m one of those anti-Catholic bigots. I disagree with Catholicism — and, for that matter, all of Christianity — as passionately as I disagree with just about all religions. But I’m aware that I am, to quote the lyrics to “Freewill,” just a “cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete.” Said imperfection and incompleteness makes it impossible for me to know in any objective way whether I’m truly right. Or for that matter whether my emotions are clouding my intellect. That’s why I believe that everyone has to be given room to practice and express their beliefs in an appropriate way.
And by appropriate, I mean non-violent and respectful of other people’s rights. I mean, if your religion requires you to play the tamborine while singing “Copacabana” in my front yard at 2 a.m., you’re out of luck.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at May 24, 2006 11:42 PM
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but is there any reason they’d have a motive for a slant on that particular story? How would saying that Hayes didn’t really quite SP for the ostensible reason tie into their right-wing bias? I mean, if they reported that it was going to rain, or that the sky was blue, would you discount that automatically, even without explaining how there is a right-wing motive there? 🙂
Luigi, note that I didn’t say that Fox’s right-wing bias is what leads me to doubt the veracity of their report about the “real story” behind Isaac Hayes quitting South Park. You assumed that was the case — wrongly, in this instance.
I believe Fox News has a right-wing bias, mind you, but I believe that is but one of the problems with their reporting. I also believe they are more prone to sensationalism then many other news operations, and, as the travesty they called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? shows, they are not exactly committed to fact-checking.
Mind you, I’m aware that other more liberal news outlets have similar problems. But Fox is, in my opinion, one of the worst. And it’s not because they’re right-wing. It’s because they’re šhìŧŧÿ reporters.
Even if someone has been proven to have a bias, not everything single thing they say is the opposite of the truth.
No, but I never said that was the case. I simply said I was skeptical. There’s a difference.
What you should do is try and corroborate FOX’s story, by seeking out other sources with the story.
Why? I’ve seen the story from various media outlets, and Fox is the only one that reported that Hayes quit South Park for reasons other than anger over their treatment of Scientology. Given Fox’s track record, I feel justified in remaining skeptical.
How about this — why doesn’t Fox do more to corroborate their story? That’s a reporter’s job. I oughtta know — I used to be a reporter.
Josh–While I REALLY have a lot of respect for your line of thinking (religious tolerance, being one of the principles the country was founded on) I have to point out that most of the controversy didn’t take PLACE in this country. I’m not sure if it’s an American thing or what, but other countries have other values. We can’t expect other countries to act like us or follow our lead, (nor would I want them to in some cases) but occasionally we could teach them a thing or two.
As far as Christians not recognizing Anti-Semitism unless they see certain symbols or things, unfortunately that’s the nature of the beast. Mile in their shoes, and everything. Groups can try to be sensitive to each other, but how much can they ever REALLY understand?
And as for the Veracity of Fox News…any “news” channel that spends that much time and energy covering their two main stories(those being, of course, Natalie Holloway and American Idol) should not be taken seriously. As I said in school (and now here so we all can enjoy it) the news we see isn’t the news, it’s what the people controlling it think we’ll think is news. Facts? Ahh, who needs ’em?
I’m not gonna get into a whole Fox vs CBS, CNN etc, but by the standards you’ve expressed here, none of them pass muster.
Besides, wasn’t Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? played on the Fox TV network, not Fox News–two totally different entities? (it would be like giving Fox News CREDIT for The Simpsons!).