Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Maliagar

Back but a single page...

"You mention some historical references (Tacitus and Flavius - you'll perhaps acknowledge that the 'gospels' kind of beg the question of historicity). To which exact passages do you refer?"

I see everyone that's so sensitive about any criticism of the Catholic church still volunteer it as the perveryor of all that is wrong with religion. It's just a good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) example. Of course, they beat their drums more loudly than other religions when it comes to homosexuality and other hot topics. What's being criticized here is the wholesale endorsement of Gibson's film, like we are suppose to accept the Catholic church as film critics now. Are all these senstive protectors of the Catholic church from small town parishes? This isn't the forum to do so but I could certainly reveal what I know about the metropolitan based churches and their priests that would likely curl one's earlobes up.

And what is really funny and disastrous is they are all speaking as if they were the Pope. That's where we got the word "pontificate," I believe.

Well, and then there are the Magdalene asylums -- and renewed interest in them because a film has been made...

http://iht.com/articles/78544.html

There are some wonderful Catholics, and I bet each critic in these pages knows someone who works in or with the Church who is five-star. But the Church has an undeniable history of atrocities, ignorance, greed and felony. All indefensible. The supporters of the Church in this thread, and elsewhere, might do better to simply say, "I love the Church," and let it go at that.

I am not looking at the church from a distance...

there's no indictment of the church as a whole in anything I've said.

I do not write it off as integrally evil as you would like to put words in my mouth.

I am tolerant of what it says and does...

Of course, I have opinions about what the church stands for...

as an entity

and specfically about its relationship with Hollywood...

or for that matter any film made anywhere.

It can ban films in the mis-directed spirit of censorship within its own ranks...

I apologize if I've shaken anyone's sensibilities about their religion...

Let's get off the subject of religious beliefs and stick to the film.

I think we should all see the film and then judge if it's anything profoundly new...

or just another depiction of the crucifixion (which I believe never should be shown in the graphic detail the filmmakers have inserted in the past...

-- it get's into the territory of trying to dredge up guilt feelings...

about something that no person can attest occurred in the first place...

Fun to talk to you too, maliagar -- you'll notice this was posted in "Politics" instead of "Film" or "Religion" which is curious as I don't see the political aspects except for the politics of the church.
We're simply not going to see eye-to-eye (or a tooth for a tooth) and I repeat, if anyone had read what I've said about other religions, including Scientology or the myriad of offbeat "religions," you'd know where I come from. I promise I won't pick on the Catholic church in forums were I know the posters are likely to have a negative reaction.

Anyone see the Gore Vidal biographical analysis last night on PBS? It was really incredible. Of course, he's one of my heroes except I have difficulty swallowing what he wrote re Timothy McVeigh. It's the same misgivings I had about Truman Capote with "In Cold Blood." You see, nothing is sacred after all.

You're not convincing...

...and your prejudices are more boring than all the members on A2K combined.

I think we are pretty much all overwhelmed by your astute knowledge and comprehension of 1,000's of years of western intellectual history and amazing deftness with the fine nuances of historic philosophy, I know I am. I also prefer green m&m's over yellow ones.