The Passion of the Christ - Blog Day Afternoon Posted by Jeff (Sunday March 14 2004 @ 10:32AM EST)

I haven't seen The Passion of the Christ - largely because I'm not a fan of snuff - but I have seen the hype. Christian columnists have called the film's director "brave" and "courageous." He holds these attributes because he had the guts to release a pro-Jesus movie in the puritanical United States at a time when religious fundamentalists have the President's ear. For his bravery, director Mel Gibson has been rewarded rather handsomely. The "Passion" may indeed become the highest grossing movie of all-time. Before it was released, critics claimed that it would promote "bigotry, hatred and intolerance." Well it certainly accomplished that. Christian movie goers have displayed all those traits in their efforts to silence critics of the film. In response to Andy Rooney's critique, one Christian described him an "asinine, bottom-dwelling, numb-sculled, low-life, slimy, sickening, gutless, spineless, ignorant, pot-licking, cowardly pathetic little weasel.” Indeed Mr. Rooney's criticism yielded the single greatest mountain of hate mail 60 Minutes has ever recieved. But Christian bigotry continued even with good ink. The movie critic Richard Roeper wrote a rave review of the Gibson film that was discredited by Christain moralists almost immediately. A day after Roeper's review appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, he further advanced Christain values when he assailed the president for proposing a Constitutional amendment that would force gay people to have sex outside of wedlock. Someone without the intestinal fortitude to amend the Constitution in order to promote bigotry, has no place in the Cult of Mel Gibson. Links to Roeper's review were quickly removed from Christian websites. For Christians harboring a martyr's complex, it was one thing for "secularists" to criticize the film, it was quite another for Christians to miss it. Tom Ehrich is an Episcopal priest and a weekly columnist. When he penned that he had no intention to see the Passion, angry readers chastised his decision. He was called a "spiritual wimp." One reader wrote that he was "tearing down a treasure." Another called him a "tool of Satan." At one time in America, you could have been described thus for seeing a movie. And so it goes.

< Libertarians and Funkmen | Free Martha >

By Will is Right (Sunday March 14 2004 @ 10:33PM EST)

Millions of people disagree with you, Jeff. I suppose you're used to that. I particularly love your anecdotal "proof" of Christian Bigotry. In your pigeon-holing of Christians, I'm curious, are we supposed to sit idly by in contemplative prayer while being repeatedly blindsided by you and your buddies on the left? Do we not fit your stereotype when we take a position that we will not be steamrolled by the hate rhetoric that spews from hollywood and coordinated media against the moral principals that we try hard to attain? Where is the chink in the armor here? As good Christians, are we to mute ourselves when Andy Rooney spews venom on his national news program? Or when Frank Rich writes from the NY Times (all the news that's fit to print *Chuckle*) slandering and attacking Mel Gibson and his work 6 months before he'd even seen it. And on and on and on. So what is your point, Jeff? That Christian people suck? As one, I admit it. They do. Churches are full of sinners. It's why they're there, to be delivered by Christ. The vehicle of salvation which was brilliantly delivered in Mel Gibson's film is celebrated every Sunday. Finally, to imply that there is not an anti-Christian bigotry emanating from the mainstream media, secularist leftists, and an activist judiciary is disingenuous. Just try to put a manger scene at a public school in New York City.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 06:48AM EST) The point? This film did generate intolerance, but it was not anti-semitic, rather it was Christian intolerance for people who did not bow to the "greatness" of Mel Gibson and his movie. You seem to confuse facts with annecdotes. Everything I've described has been widely reported for weeks. But you also introduce another strawman. You argued against my proof of Christian bigotry, but I offered no such claims. This story offers instances of Christian bigotry to support a claim that pre-release fears were correct. The Passion would promote intolerance. BTW: Andy Rooney didn't "spew venom," he called Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson "wackos." Actually, Mel Gibson is the one who is out of step. He doesn't even support the Vatican II reforms of 1965. I gave that Council "two thumbs up" years ago. That puts me in synch with Catholic mainstream. Mel Gibson?--not so much. [ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Monday March 15 2004 @ 07:23AM EST) See Matthew 5:39 for what a Christian should do when attacked. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 07:39AM EST) This is why I suck at Bible verses. Funkman's passage reads as follows: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Contemporary Christian interpretation follows: "But I say unto you, if one shall smite thee right cheek, attacketh whomever thou pleaseth under false pretenses contrived by thine Secret Services." I never would have guessed... [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Monday March 15 2004 @ 07:06AM EST)

Andy Rooney also mocked God but that's ok because God is an acceptable target our world. I enjoy the fact that you have facts on your side and I produce strawmen. I suppose the definition is in the eyes of the definer. Let me throw another definition at you: Tolerance: Acceptance of every practice, behavior, or creed which serves any purpose whatsoever and allows all belief to be placed on equal ground creating a social utopia of equality and harmony. Except for pre-defined intolerants. What social utopians define as intolerance will not be tolerated. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

[ reply | parent ]

By Funkman (Monday March 15 2004 @ 07:25AM EST) Andy Rooney mocked Pat Robertson, not God. I think God was happy to be part of his satire. [ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Monday March 15 2004 @ 07:50AM EST)

I don't see him mocking God.

[ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Monday March 15 2004 @ 09:50AM EST)

I thought you beleived in freedom of speech? How is criticism and vitriol silencing someone? Has anyone been violent towards the film's critics? Has anyone made an effort to have criticism of the film outlawed? People are free to criticise it, and people who disagree are free to verbally attack the critics, and not do business with people whose opinions they do not like, including bad-mouthing a film they believe to be good. Unless rampaging Christians start burning down the offices of newspapers who print negative reviews, or try to get the government to make it the US National Film and force people to watch it, there really is no story here. *yawn* But I dunno, there is no such thing as bad press, so Mel Gibson is probably glad you are irritated enough to advertise his film for him. :-P

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 11:44AM EST) I don't recall any mention on my part to stifle their right to blast critics. Nor do I think their efforts to silence people like Andy Rooney with an innundation of negative mail to his employer will result in his being silenced. Here you seem to confuse efforts with results. Hint: this article is about crude displays by people who profess values of peace and love toward individuals whose opinions run counter to their own. An Episcopal priest is a "tool of satan" because movie attendance isn't on his calendar! Feel free to venture over to Limbaugh 24/7 where irony is only unintentional. [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Monday March 15 2004 @ 06:19PM EST) "people who profess values of peace and love" Name one. Or again, is that your interpretation of what a Christian should be. The only difference between Christians and non-Christians are that Christians "know" that they are sinners and have asked for forgiveness and salvation through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. That's it. We're not building a time machine here. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 08:44PM EST) Since I don't claim to be an expert, I'll defer to Pope John Paul II: "Help us to be credible witnesses of his message of peace and love." [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Tuesday March 16 2004 @ 09:48AM EST) This Jesus dude was talkin' 'bout a revolution: Matthew 10:34-36 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Of course, I think Pat Robertson's views are closer to Adolph Hitler's vis a vis Jesus's message as described in the Gospels... [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Tuesday March 16 2004 @ 10:50AM EST) I always thought he was the Prince of Peace... ...ahhh, the Prince of Pieces [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Monday March 15 2004 @ 08:46PM EST)

Thank you for helping to make my argument.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 09:01PM EST)

May peace and love be with you, brother Will

[ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Monday March 15 2004 @ 09:53PM EST)

Well, there you have it. When all else fails, mock the faith of a believer with something that you hope will shock and appall. Sorry dude, it missed it's desired effect. I already saw it on Drudge. Furthermore, Howard Stern and his legions of moronic minions lost their edge years ago. If you want to cut the edge with a butterknife, I guess he's your guy. I have to give you points for the attempt, though. You did at least "try" to be insulting. And, since I'm new to posting on your blog, do you generally play the insult card late in a conversation that's not going your way or to all conservatives in general. The only reason I ask is that it may save me time in the future.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Monday March 15 2004 @ 10:30PM EST) Man, you read deep between the lines. Unfortunately there was nothing there. I just wanted a platform to share "The Passion of the Stern." I thought this was a pretty good place. Paris 1919 calls. Later. [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!