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

seb

Tartarin will likely advance her own thoughts here, and I'm not speaking for her in any way at all. But I thought I'd address your question because it is a fair one.

There is a considerable amount of variation regarding at what specific age a person is deemed to be sufficiently responsible to be allowed certain rights or to be subject to certain responsibilities (eg, driving a car, owning a gun, engaging in sexual relationships, seeking advice from his/her doctor on reproductive matters without a parent, elegibility for draft, etc). Such variations apply within any jurisdiction, and juridictions themselves vary as regards some of these age boundaries. Variations commonly also are written into law where the elder person is in a position of trust or authority.

So the best we can probably hope for in establishing legal precedent might be the age at which, in some given jurisdiction, a young adult is not constrained from engaging in sexual acts with an older person (age of consent). That is, of course, if we allow that same sex relationships are legally and morally equal to heterosexual relationships. For the sake of the question you've raised, I think we must procede in that manner.

But we should also acknowledge here that such boundaries set into law arise from local community standards and those standards are subject to change, and some of these laws are very ancient. At present, for example, some amount of research into youth sexuality suggests that there may be emotional and developmental deficits in policing or prohibiting youth sexuality.

Leaving that aside, we can take my province, BC, as an example, where the age of consent is established at 14. Thus, in this jurisdiction a 14 year old male is assumed to have the maturity and the right to engage in sexual relationships with any other male older than he.

I'd never looked at the NAMBLA site previously, and it is well worth study (even if you might be deeply opposed, there is prudence and intellectual integrity in understanding one's enemies). Here is a relevant quote...
"We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives."

That quote is relevant in two ways, it seems to me. First, the acknowledgement of consent and free choice. Secondly, in their opposition to age of consent law.

The second of these (age of consent) seems to me to be best established by the professions dealing with emotions and development. I might have been taught, being raised in a Mennonite culture as I was, that a seventeen year old girl is too young to have intercourse, but that notion might be quite false from a psychological point of view. I would argue that if such could be established, then it ought to trump an old and quite arbitrary cultural standard. Having a 20 year old daughter, by the way, I do not share NAMBLA's viewpoint on age of consent.

The first point above, willing participation, is relevant particularly in the comparison between the two positions that have come up here - NAMBLA and forced or coerced sexual abuse by Catholic priests (not the only adults in this position of trust category, of course). Here, there seems surely to be no question as to which is the grievous wrong.

I hope that helps clarify some issues. None of these questions are simple, unless one falls prey to the 'easy answer'.

Let me quickly add another relevant point here.

There is, at least in our culture and one might expect it to be more common than that, a negative reaction to sexual relationships between people of greatly differing ages. When North American communities were being settled, at the period before laws were established or organized policing and courts, social rules tended to be those brought from the settlers' homelands. Along with those 'rules', they brought the charivari (or chivari), a social policing mechanism where, when folks were unhappy about some community member's behavior, they would meet at night outside the person's home and yell and beat pots. One of the most common behaviors which charivari's addressed was the union (even if legal) between an old man and a young woman.

One has to have some sensitivity to NAMBLA's viewpoint and the age factor is really in play there -- it will still always disturb some people and others will be ambivalent. Same is true for the Catholic church scandal. This is, of course, veering off the topic once again. Maybe a posted topic regarding NAMBLA by someone brave enough to do so?

I've watched the "sneak preview" clip of the movie more than once and still couldn't get rid of flashback to "The Count of Monte Cristo" in the prison scenes, being whipped, et al. This association is unfortunate and I still feel it's a miscasting. Nobody, of course, is ever going to make a perfect movie about the life of Christ. They've all embellished and exagerated what is actually in the St. Mathew text.

Playing fast and loose with history in "Braveheart," especially the final, agonizing crucifixion metaphor didn't keep him away from starring in another revisionist historical film, "The Patriot." Some of the scenes in that film were so grossly manipulative and false, they were laughable. Maybe he should have taken the lead in "The Passion" as Mad Max finally becoming a martyr.

"You seem to be saying that since NAMBLA is open about it, it's ok. "... Seb

No, I asked which was more honest (a relative virtue, but not necessarily a rubber stamp for recruit kids). I know virtually nothing about NAMBLA and have no reason to defend it therefore. But as a part-time European, I see matters of homosexual behavior (including the man-boy thing) is less frightening than many full-time Americans do. That's going to stir up a storm, I bet, because there are some very strong opinions about this in the US. I just don't subscribe to all of them and that's pretty much all I have to say about it!

I wish I'd read Blatham's posts before posting my response -- I would have just responded: What Blatham said (and he's actually checked out the NAMBLA site...)

I've always disliked (from when I was a kid) the culture's tendency to force kids into sexual behaviors before they're ready. If some older guy forced my 13-year-old spotty, creaky voiced son into sex, I'd be mad as hell. I'd be just as mad if some girl -- or some movie, or a group of his friends -- urged him to start before he was ready. Sex isn't something which should be forced on anyone, for any reason. But kids (and adults) mature at different rates, and as long as coercion (physical, cultural, or any kind of coercion) isn't in play, I believe any kind of sex -- private and by mutual consent -- is just fine and may the participants have the joy of it!

Blath - thanks for the reply. You have eloquently made your point, and a point well taken - that there is a fiduciary relationship with a priest that does not exist with a member of NAMBLA, and that demands of it a standard of trust far exceeding that of a non-fiduciary relationship (I believe you were referring to Justice Cardozo). It's the first intelligent response I've gotten in relation to that particular question.

However, your answer is the reason given by NAMBLA for its attempted justification, not the justification or explanation that the average "attacker" of the church might use in distinguishing the acts of one from the other's. In other words, there are people, including some in this thread, who are just "chomping at the bit", waiting for the church to do something contrary to its own canons so they can attack while there are others, more readily available prey, that deserve attacking in the interim (NAMBLA for one). My point being that the church, for all it's sins, has far exceeded its shortcomings with its extraordinary acts of humanity, done all in the name of Jesus Christ. But, because it does so much good in the name of someone who many look at as an enemy, it is an easy target. In other words, the standards set by the church are not comprehensible to those ready to attack. Take, for example, the charge that the church should do away with celebacy. Would that make child molestation or do away with it? Absolutely not. But to the harsh critics, it would make it a bit less "attackable" because the priest would then be looked at as almost an "equal" in the standard of morality, for lack of a better way to put it.

My biggest complaint of the church is that it turns the other cheek all too often. If it would, for once, just not allow it to be pushed around, as most other groups do crying racism or anti-semitism or discrimination at the slightest challenge, it would not be so vulnerable. Then again, that comment is not very Christian of me and would be something that the church would never agree with. Therein lies the irony - it does so much good because it strives to be Christ like - but the very premise of its existence is the very reason it is so vulnerable.

Yes, the fiduciary relationship does allow for a greater level of trust and faith in its members. But it is the church itself that set those standards; the very standards that it is mocked for having are the standards that they are being accused of being in contravention of. The hypocrisy, therefore, lies not with the curch, but with it accusers.

While I'm all for our freedoms, I wonder sometimes how a group like NAMBLA can be permitted to exist openly as they do. Consider a similar group dedicated to supporting and informing those who prefer rape to consensual sex. I'm pretty sure the law would come down on them like a hammer. Why not NAMBLA?

Seb (welcome to A2K, by the way -- just noticed you're new here!) -- I think your most recent post puts you next in line as Bush's press secretary. It has all the earmarks of the best of Ari Fleischer.

Scrat

Coercion. Your analogy doesn't hold.

seb

I have to leave for a day or so, but I'll address your tempered post more thoroughly when I return. But I think I'll be arguing against your final sentence and the church's record. It might perhaps be appropriate to start up another thread for this, and leave this one to the originator's intent. If you aren't sure how to do that, just send a PM to lightwizard and he'll be happy to assist.

I'd be happy to split off the digression into NAMBLA, the law and religion with whatever title someone who wants to run the thread would come up with.

The one scene in the clip of Christ prostrate on the ground bloodied -- I'm sorry, but it looks like Ben Hur took a wrong turn with his chariot and pummeled over the poor thing. Then, like the lady convicted of killing her husband with a Mercedes, backed over him several times.

Wasn't there a scene in "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" where someone got mutilated under an auto and was left on the road?

Melvin seems to re-create the same death scenarios repeatedly--a lot of the 'blood-drenched slayer' in "Braveheart" and "Patriot", I recall.

Ah hell, it's only a movie. I'll go see it (and won't carry any baggage with me when I go).

To be fair, he didn't have much to do with "The Patriot" but I remember an interview where he said he had sought out the part because he wanted to show his patriotism. In a film that belies what Dubya recently said about historic revisionism. He does seem to be fixated on mutilation, though -- "The Man With No Face" with that ridiculous, doughy-looking make up smeared over his face (my nomination for the worst make-up of the decade). He does have his (double) standards.

It's a bit over the top, huh LW.

They might as well have done away with the crucifixion, and just flailed him to death.

There are some outraged letters in today's NYTimes indicating that a rise in anti-semitism is expected due to the content of the Gibson film (no matter that it's based, they say, "on scripture.")

To what extent should one worry about this, about lapses from political correctness? I felt these people were going way too far. Actual acts of anti-semitism should be punished to the full extent of the law, but prohibiting a film (however bad it is, and the general opinion seems to be that it's awful) because it might "provoke" something strikes me as a) authoritarian and b) insulting -- assuming that we are children and must be controlled when it comes to what we see, hear, etc., because WHO KNOWS how we may react...!!

Yeah, Tartarin, I'm not impressed by the shouting about anti-semitism -- how many movies have been made about the Crucifixion and do any of them make the Rabiis or Harod look good? If they are thinking the emphasis on the torture, blood and gore will make Christians start attacking Jews, I don't buy it. The prejudices of one religion towards another are the deepest and most regretful in the modern world and haven't changed much in history. Words seem to fall on deaf ears on all sides. I say let them fight it out amongst themselves.

InfraBlue -- yeah, maybe they should have really gone off the boards, pulling out all the stops and having Hannibal show up to do the dirty work with his little skull saw. They could serve wine and cheese.

I just wanted to say that i think its ridiculous to to think this move or ANY other Jesus' death type movie has anything to do with anti-semitism....JESUS WAS JEWISH...so were his disciples!!! the ADL also realeased some statements saying that if the movie was to be completely honest, they would leave out the "fictionous" parts that the Jews abused Jesus before the crucifixion...Mark 14:65....And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!"...thats just one part in the Bible that mentions the Jews abusing him...its not "ficticious"...the ADL also says that Mel Gibson should go by the New Testament after it was rewrote by "scholars"...these "scholars" say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul wrote a false anti-Jewish view of the crucifixion to appease the Romans at that time...now if these "scholars" knew anything about the Bible, they would know that none of the disciples EVER tried to appease the Romans! Paul was beheaded by them!!! why was he killed by Romans? not because he was kissing their butts, he was killed because he wrote and spoke the truth whether they wanted to hear it or not! and my final rant about the opposition to this movie, Jesus could have come down from that cross anytime he wanted to, He is the Son of God!!! the Jews weren't keeping him on that cross with nails!!! the man walked on water and raised the dead!!!! He stayed on that cross for everyone, he stayed on that cross so that some day maybe the very Jews that crucified him could become his children! He loved them so much!! its crazy to think the movie would be anti-Jews!!! to be anti-Jewish would be anti-Jesus!! ok im done ranting!!!

ignore the double post i made

I guess Paul found out how futile it was to appease the Romans and should have observed the example of Judas. I do not believe in censorship, so it's in the hands of Mr. Gibson as to what happens with the final cut of the film. A rough cut was presented -- I wonder why? Duh.

I unclear what you mean here, and don't want to put words in your keyboard. Can you be more clear? Are you claiming that coercion is a component of one of these crimes but not the other? Help me understand. Thanks.

I just had to pop in to agree with you here!