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

Well, that's refreshing. At least there are some types of priestly misconduct he feels strongly about...

I mean, he seems to be opposed to leaving the scene of a crash one has caused...

Maybe he was one of those boys who really enjoyed his relationship with his mentor priest. He certainly doesn't seem loath to turn his face away from disasters...

I see there are those who don't remember that there is such a thing as the handwriting on the wall (which is from the Bible). Gibson's general medriocrity, relying on his looks and popularity as an action hero speak for themselves. I suppose these people have seen the "Lithal Weapon" and Mad Max series and hope this is Gibson's own confessional of his cinematic sins.

:wink:

Such a revealing response.

The fact that Mel Gibson produced and directed a religious movie about the death of Christ makes him comparable to thieves, child abusers, and other criminals.

I suppose other Christians and Catholics are equally guilty of the crime of religion.

Shut them up. Silence their creepy voices. Ridicule them so that people don't have to pay attention to what they say. Bertter, put them all in jail! That's the open-mindedness and tolerance advocated by today's self-appointed moral judges of the world.

By their words (and deeds) ye shall know them.

Oh for goodness sake george. Throughout this thread, there have been but two criticisms made of the catholic church...that it has some very immoral history (including recent history) and that thus, it's claims to a moral high road are indeed hypocritical.

The very instant the church enters the political arena, in that instant it presents itself for all of the criticism and even satirization which any political agent is subject to. That you, Maliagar, or anyone else might be offended is no more relevant than if a Rotarian or a Democrat is offended by comments directed at their group.

That you label such as anti-catholicism, and liken it to anti-semitism, is an unusual bit of transparently lousy thinking on your part. Someone you know of wants to gas all Catholics? Wants to remove them from the gene pool?

This is about ideas. The pope gets no pass, scripture gets no pass, humanists get no pass, I get no pass. Everything is up for investigation and criticism. Anything else is dogmatism, and dogmatism makes for dumb.

Blatham,

I haven't explicitly raised the issue of anti Catholicism at all. I have, however noted the intrusion of secular "morality" into areas once occupied primarily by religion, and lamented the displacement of traditional religion from our lives by the modern secular form which, unlike religion, has no constraint in its political activities and its ability to bend government to its service.

The church has not entered the political arena. Secular advocates have invaded the religious arena and decreed that it is politics and thereby forbidden to religion.

The Catholic Church declares that abortion is murder. Secular humanists decree that such a view violates a 'woman's sacred right to choose', and that anyone who believes otherwise is somehow "extreme" and (at least in the eyes of many) therefore unfit to serve in our judiciary. This is an extraordinary complex question with many cruel side effects all around. However, infanticide does involve the taking of an innocent human life, and it is at least arguable to assert that any woman has an unfettered right to choose it as a life style option.

I fully agree that no set of beliefs 'gets a pass', as you described it. I suggest this applies as well to the contemporary secular orthodoxy. It isn't beyond question or criticism either.

george

Well, you did quote Maliagar, after all. You know, I like you, but I sure don't like your argument.

1 - displacement of religion...of course, christianity itself displaced other belief systems, but I'll wager you think that an appropriate modernization/substitution.

2 - the political arena ought to be dominated by local theologies? Also true in Iran, or Saudi Arabia (two more foreigners beheaded yesterday) or just as regards christianity?

3 - the church advocating (and actively working to alter) community policy isn't an example of political activity?

4 - yes, abortion is complex, in that there are values and principles in competition (the sanctity of life on the one hand, and the sanctity of one's own body on the other) and personally, I'm relieved that I haven't had to suffer this dilemma. But I DO maintain both of those principles, even though I am completely unconvinced by any theistic argument I've bumped into.

5 - the church is not constrained from influence, it is constrained from dominance

Blatham,

I suspect I am more tolerant and occasionally supportive of your arguments than you are of mine.

Point #1 - I agree.
Point #5 - well said.

I think you know I don't either advocate or wish for religious dominance of any aspect of our public lives, either as individuals or as a group. We agree that influence is the right limit.

I am however concerned about a newly emerging belief system that is unburdened by either the trappings or the political constraints of religion, but which is increasingly intruding on questions of individual morality and ground once at least occupied by religion. The key point here is that the new belief system winds itself into government, making government the instrument of its dictates. That is new.

Oh, how I wish I'd written that!

Those who want to follow the dictates of any church are free to do so in this country, no? As long as it doesn't involve human sacrifice and so forth.

Where the rubber hits the road, of course, is when I look over my shoulder and don't like what you're doing. Especially if my church tells me that what you're doing is wrong.

Re "the political constraints of religion," I'd like to hear more what that means. Speaking in mind, of course, the idea of church/state separation...

I made it a point to call my friend at Billboard Magazine -- Mel Gibson is in fact in the editing room and conferring with representatives of the ADL on the biases of the script. Scorcese wouldn't budge on "Last Temptation," but then we have a respected and seasoned director compared of a one-trick-pony director. I don't believe Gibson is sincere in not caring if the film is something of a commercial success and I wonder if he isn't re-thinking the presentation in Latin, without sub-titles. He doesn't really believe we are all going to bring our Bibles and flashlights to read along or does he believe what he has produced is like an opera?

The opera comparison may be appropriate, Lightwizard. I'm going to hear Parcifal this weekend, and I made sure to read the plot and hear some of the music beforehand. My German is a bit rusty. Maybe Mel wants us to bone up on our Gospels so we can enjoy his film despite ignorance of Latin and Aramaic?

Didn't I read somewhere that Latin would be inaccurate anyhow, as those characters would be speaking Greek?

If one is familiar with the story, like most opera fans are with the stories of the operas, and if the musical score and recitive in Latin flows beautifully, it may not be that bad -- after all, so many operas have the main character(s) dying in the end. But is Mel up to producing such a work of art? Cinema has been called the lowest denominator of the arts but there are films that rise to the level of fine art. They're in the MOMA collection. I suppose someone could think to say that the Jewish elite at MOMA wouldn't allow this film into its vault. There was another figure of the 20th century who thought that way. Let's be judicious in who one is pointing fingers at as far as prejudice.

Anti-Catholicism is a fact of U.S. history. It is both rooted in radical Protestantism (for which mainstream Anglicanism and Lutheranism were still too "Catholic") and in the anti-Christian message of the Modern secularist revolutions (French, Russian, Mexican; Spanish civil war, etc.). See, for a brief taste of it, "Gangs of New York". See also the history of the Ku Klux Klan in the north east, the history of the colony of Maryland, or the debates surrounding presidential candidates Al Smith and John Kennedy.

The radical Protestant version of anti-Catholicism is fading in the more cosmopolitan regions in the U.S. (not necessarily in the Bible belt). The secular version is alive and well. You can be openly, publicly and militantly anti-Catholic, and very few people will see anything wrong with it. You can film all kinds of anti-Catholic movies, and they will be welcomed by the establishment as "controversial". Try being too critical of Judaism or Buddhism... Or try filming a Catholic movie...

Dr. Suma Cum Laude Blatham believes that there's no anti-Catholicism because nobody is (so far) advocating killing Catholics. He needs to go over his high school history. Anti-Semitism was around and expressed itself in many ways well before the Nazis took it to new levels. In this forum, and very tellingly, some bigoted fellows are comparing Mel Gibson and other Christians with thieves and other criminals... What would happen if they were in positions of power (like Ted Turner)?


Some people seem to believe that the (conveniently exaggerated) sexual scandals in U.S. Catholicism disqualify the Church to speak authoritatively on any issues. WRONG. Think again, but just a bit harder:

- The fact that you have corrupt policemen or judges does not disqualify law enforcement or the judiciary.

- The fact that you may have corrupt senators does not disqualify a representative democracy.

- The fact that you have school teachers, scout masters, or jewish rabbis, who sexually abuse children does not disqualify each system (and its representatives) to work for the highest values they promote.

- Thousands of political scandals at the local and state levels of government do not disqualify Federalism and locally-based goverance.

- The fact that you have the president of the United States cheating on his wife with an intern in the White House and then lying to the whole world about it does not disqualify the presidency, and does not lead people to think that they should quit being U.S. citizens and embrace some other citizenship--or none altogether.

- The fact that we all are hypocrites at one point or another does not disqualify us to embrace a set of values which we deem true, and to try to live by them (despite weaknesses).

- The fact that we're all sinners does not necessarily impede us from recognizing the right values and seeking to live by them despite failings.

So let's avoid the temptation of self-righteousness, my "open minded" fellows. It leads to the worst type of hypocrisy: the one that's incapable of seeing its own limitations.

Maliagar, I agree with you up to a point. I recently read "Hellfire Nation", an excellent book by a political scientist on how the notion of sin has been used by those in power against the outsiders in our society. First it was the Puritans attacking Indians, Quakers and witches, and it's gone on from there.

So, yes, M, Catholics have been targets of hatred in this country. But so have, Germans, Dutch, Blacks, Chinese, Jews, Irish...And the list goes on.

If you want to consider yourself part of a victimized group, feel free. But given our history of mistreating minorities at one time or another, I'm not sure how unique a status that is.

That's a historical fact. The real question is: Is this really a problem of the past?



You miss the point. The issue is: Today, in this country, in this forum, it is politically acceptable to be anti-Catholic. Try being anti-Jew, or anti-Black, or anti-gay... Or try being just Catholic... :wink:



You miss the point again. The issue is not what I want or what I feel. We are not talking about personal feelings (mine or yours). The issue is getting to the TRUTH.



It is very unique, considering that it can be out and in the open TODAY, on TV, in the movies, in this forum.

I hope this helps.

:wink:

George

You know, this has occured to me as well. I think we ought to allow the possibility that you are simply a nicer person than I. And perhaps my goodwill doesn't manage to hack its way through all the twist of verbs and subjunctive clauses to make the sort of appearance it does in the flesh - 'a species of deformed and gorky imbecile smile' is the way it has been described by those who profess to love me. And partly it might be that you hold, and bravely advance, some notions which, when I hear them, produce an urge to throw cheese balls at the speaker.



That's one - the equation of a religious world-view (catholicism, protestantism, sufiism, dervishism) with a non-religious world view. The implication is that they are qualitatively equal, except the latter is without any moral anchor. We've talked about this before, but, like my last wife, YOU JUST DON'T LISTEN!

Let's take the moral anchor point. Can such emerge only within the beating hearts of believers? And which believers? Are animists inherently more morally inclined than a fellow like me? Or within Christianity, are catholics more likely to have a correct moral anchor than, say, versions of african christianity which incorporate elements of ancestor worship and magic?

Morality, huh? I think Blatham is the most moral of us all. Why, his middle name is Prudence.