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

No problem at all, MovieMn. I think it's about time that more people realize that if one's actions/comments are based on true conviction, no matter what they might be or no matter how unpopular, and as long as it's not done with an intent to insult another, one should never apologize. The world, or I should say this one great nation, has become so PC about everything that most are conditioned to think twice about something when, in fact, there's nothing wrong. I'm going to step off my little soap box now and just say thank you for your thank you. Have a great day.

Seb.

Re: Whatever...


Had MovieMn not said 'you all'--meaning the members discussing the film--I would have agreed with what he said.

We're here to discuss things--and for someone to tell us not to is ridiculous.

I didn't take offense to his opinion of the issue--I took minor offense to being told I shouldn't be 'fussing over a movie'.

Your are correct, Sofia, and the apology was sincere. I think someone fussing over someone apologizing for fussing about fussing over a movie gets the boobie prize for fussing.

I'm glad you said that.
:wink:

Don't pay too much attention 'cause I'm just fussin'.

(I did say the whole thing was "sound and fury signifying nothing" and I was referring to the ADL. However, that Gibson would be sounding so magnanimous in once again filming the Passion and with the Count of Monte Cristo (!) as Christ is a negative -- historical clues say that Jesus was round faced, had a black beard that was trimmed, was likely facially unordinary and was basically advocating the trashing of much of the Old Testament, and it's antiquated text much to the chagrin of the Rabiis of the day. He was a revolutionary and was crucified for it no matter who was ultimately the culprit. The Bible is quite clear about that, at least. That the Catholic church came out against "The Last Temptation of Christ" now seems hypocritical considering the revelations in Boston of how many people were sexually abused. I sugges they clean up their own house before criticizing others for their religiious statements. Martin Luther is still around to haunt them, or has everyone forgotten?)

I realize this is off topic, but you seem to have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church, LW--this is not the only time i've seen you come down on them like a ton of bricks. What's your beef? A corrupt hierarchy does not necessarily distinguish them from others, and a warped priesthood does not cast a shadow on the character of those for whom the church represents their personal confession.

Well...
"Well, I'm bummed. Mel is a lunatic."

Sofia, I would not be too worried about a few paragraphs of things Mel Gibson said 8 years ago. People can change a lot in 8 years. People can change a lot in 8 days... or less. It depends on their motivation. In fact if you read these two interviews it is not hard to tell that he has changed somewhat from who he was in 1995.

Other replies to various posts...

As far as his father being not too impressed with the Pope, well I can tell you a lot of Christians (not Catholics) feel the same way. There are some fundamental flaws in some of what Catholicism teaches. By that I mean having deviated from the Bible. I wont comment too much on his father's views though, since I don't know a great deal about them.

I also find it disappointing that there are some people who can judge so harshly. I mean, who here knows Mel personally? But then again, I have also been guilty of being judgmental at times.

Lastly, why is it so embarrassing to deny evolution? Unless of course, some have fallen for the proud statements of some evolutionary scientists, who claim that evolution is a fact. Spiritual beliefs and evolutionary beliefs have one thing in common. They are both based on faith. If I can suggest something - to those who are open minded enough, do a little investigation on the core areas of all evolutionary sciences (chemical, biological and cosmological) and you will be rather surprised at what you find. Even if this is a little off topic, here are some quotes from both evolutionary scientists and those who have turned away from it.

H.J. Muller who won a Nobel prize for his work on mutations says, "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation."

Grasse "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution"

George Gaylord Simpson says, even with extremely favourable conditions, the probability of just 5 mutations in one nucleus would be one chance in 10 to the power of 22 and the event would occur once every 274 billion years. In case you don't know, the current evolutionary estimate of the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

Dr Stephen Jay Gould, "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region... The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists...".

Darwin himself said, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Origin of Species. Darwin again, "Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the vegetable kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants." Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information." Dr. Lee Spetner

"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability." Cohen, I.L. (1984) Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities

That is just the tip of the iceberg and related to only two topics of evolution. Mutations and the geological record. There is a lot more information to be found, but if you don't have the time go here for more quotes. You will not find all the quotes in this post there. But you will find different and equally interesting quotes

No axe to grind -- the Catholic Church has always had its own sharpened axe. I'm not sure how you make the connection of any criticism of the hierchy of the church with any critcism of their followers who each have their own personal bone to pick with the church. None of the Catholics I know follow the Pope's dictates to the letter and all of them advocate female priests, an end to chastity -- is this sounding more and more like a modern day Martin Luther? I wrote a term paper on the history of the Catholic church in college -- I came away not thinking much of this particular "organized religion."

Mel is cute. I like Mel's movies, but Mel's opinions on Rhodes' scholars makes him a lunatic. "Someone" groomed Bill Clinton from age 18 to be President? Cecil Rhodes set up the evil Rhodes' Scholarship for mind control and the New World Order--and Clinton was a willing lemming to this end....?

An absurdity that should be tatooed on Mel's forehead.

LW, i have no regard for any organized religion . . . i was just commenting because i've read other very harsh criticisms by you here, in other threads, but i do not recall this sort of reaction from you toward other religious organizations.

As for Luther, the man was positively a lunatic. He came up with most of his great thoughts while in the privy, or so he reported himself, and his wild stories about confronting Satan, and driving him away with pungent farts, or being overpowered by Old Nick's gas, would be hilarious, were it not for the sobering thought that this was the icon of millions in central and northern Europe. Lutherans as gleefully killed Calvinists as they did Catholics, and every man's hand was turned against the Anabaptists. Many of the horror stories written about the Catholics which are still being passed off as history were invented by the propagansists of the Reformation, who used the printing press very effectively indeed. The Episcopalians gleefully slaughtered Catholics under Henry VIII, his daughter Mary turned the tables, although Bloody Mary couldn't match her father's body count, and her half-sister Elizabeth turned the tables again. After the execution of his father, Charles Stewart, who would one day become Charles II, lead an invasion of England by the Scots in 1651. They mostly plundered, murdered and raped, and the army collapsed when the Parliamentarians attacked them at Worchester. Charles escaped because English Catholics passed him along from one to the other, and he hid in "priest holes"--it was instant death for any priest to be found in England. When Charles finally gained the throne in 1660, he wanted to reward the Catholics for their good faith to his father and himself, but Parliament would not go along, and, in fact, passed the Test Act to assure that no one but Episcopalians would hold office. He learned a lesson, and when Jews appealed to him because they were being subjected to extortion, he quietly took private measures to protect them.

In our country, the Puritans, whose descendants today are the Congregationalists, established their religions in their colonies, and took harsh measures against any dissenters. The revivalist movement of the 1730's known as the great awakening resulted in repression, and a few hangings, by the civil authorities, acting at the behest of the religious authorities.

While Protestants played up the horrors of the Inquisition in lurid and almost never factually accurate propaganda, the greatest crimes they ever committed were taking place in central Europe and in Scotland. The Inquistion executed, after at least a form of due process, about 3,000 people in more than three centuries. In a period of less than 30 years, tens of thousands of people were hanged, drowned or burned as witches by Germans and Scots, with conservative estimates running to 30,000 to 40,000. This was done most often by mobs, and there was not even the fig leaf of a kangaroo court. That particular brand of poison reached our shores at Salem, Massachusetts in 1692.

Yes, the Catholic Church is blood-stained. So is every other major Christian sect of which i have ever read, with the possible exception of the Syriac and Nestorian Christians--whose numbers were never great, and which groups never sought political dominance. Your bias is showing big time, LW.

It's the pomp and pomposity of the Catholic church -- the humbler the church is, the more receptive I am toward's it purpose. On my term paper I dwelled on St. Francis of Assisi more than any other aspect of the church. Of course, other religious organizations don't fare very well but it's the false magnaminity of the Catholic church that opens it up to the widest criticism. You're not trying to fish out whether I was molested by a Priest? I'm afraid I won't answer that on these pages.

No, i wasn't fishing for anything. The Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the Congregationalist, the Presbyterians, the Orthodox--all of them can be indicted for pomposity and false magnanimity. I'll stick with my statement that you display a distinct bias.

This quote from LW has got to be the best thing I could possibly have read to prove my point: "That the Catholic church came out against "The Last Temptation of Christ" now seems hypocritical considering the revelations in Boston of how many people were sexually abused. I sugges they clean up their own house before criticizing others for their religiious statements. Martin Luther is still around to haunt them, or has everyone forgotten?)"

It's just amazing how people pick and choose what they like to hear and see. These comments about the movie aren't really guided towards Mel Gibson, are they? Of course not. Anyone who thinks so ought to have their heads examined and read the quote above. I actually commend LW for saying it and showing her true colors. The fact of the matter is, virtually all of the negativity towards the movie is meant to target the Catholic Church. Isn't it?

Those damned Catholics! Who cares that they do more good for the world than any other organized religion or group combined. Right? Let's do away with the Church all together! After all, there's a handful of priests who have molested children/parishioners. Therefore, the whole lot of them ought to be abolished! In the meantime, we'll just turn away from the acts of NAMBLA, hey - they're just homosexuals expressing themselves - they aren't hurting those 12 to 16 year old boys. While we're at it, let's go spit on Mother Teresa's grave - she was a Catholic - after all, she must have been evil as well. Oh, and while we're at it, let's get rid of the Red Cross - the single largest charitable organization that exists and who actually helps those who need it and actually gives away in services and the like 80 cents for every dollar it receives while other organizations average about 20 cents - hell, they're a Catholic organization - they must be up to no good!

Let's stop the bullsh-t and tell it like it is. You don't like the religion. Good for you - that's your right. If anyone has atoned for the sins of their past, however, it's the Catholic Church. I never heard a Rabbi apologize for his religion's past or their present epidemic of brothels being run and organized by orthodox and hasidic Rabbis. Have you? I bet you didn't even know that. From the sound of your comment, I bet your not much informed on these topics. But hey, this is a free country and no matter how infantile or unjustifiable a comment may be, a person does have a right to say it.

You want me to work over the other religious sects. Setanta -- I'd be happy to but it won't prove anything. Bias indicates judgement without knowledge. There you are completely off base.

Mel Gibson's The Passion, a RELIGIOUS work of art
It is very telling that in a forum like this, there is no discussion specifically aimed at RELIGIOUS issues. Evidently, for some people, religion doesn't exist anymore. They fail to see to what extent they are also BELIEVERS, and to what extent their own personal hopes and passions hide deep (and in most cases, unconscious) acts of FAITH.

This is the modern world's myopia.

Hence, the discussion on Mel Gibson's "The Passion" has been placed under the title Politics ( ), and people get all too-ready to judge a work of art using alien political criteria. This is like judging Michelangelo's "Pieta", or Shakespeare's "Hamlet" by asking whose views are advanced or "offended". It is like judging the Buddha's life by its impact on income distribution. Or like judging Handel's "Messiah" by asking if it is offensive to atheists!!!

They are myopic, and don't even realize it. They don't get the point--or worse, they don't want to get it. (I wonder if they think that the Egyptians should be offended by Charlton Heston's "Ten Commandments", or if the Hindus should be offended by a movie on Gautama's life...).

Mel Gibson's movie is a religious work of art.

It is to be judged, primarily, on that level, by people who are in touch with / aware of their spiritual path. It is to be judged by its artistic effectiveness in presenting nothing less than the most influential drama in human history (somebody dared to exhibit his or her terminal myopia by asking: "Why pick this particular story, if there are so many others?"

The movie deals with the outrageous claim made by Christians (still the most numerous and influential faith in the world) that the Creator of the whole universe became one of us to free us from our self-inflicted wounds, and to reconcile us with the Source of all Goodness, Beauty, and Truth. And that this reconciliation involves love and self-denial for the sake of God and our neighbor.

So if you've read up to this point, please do not get confused by all those voices that present the movie out of focus. Be aware of its core, its purpose, its essence: a religious, spiritual message. Get in touch with your own spiritual quest and see the movie with an open heart and an open mind. Don't let all those "modern" voices distort the real meaning of the movie. They just want to prevent you from seeing the point.

I love to watch biblical films. It is somewhat like the 1,001 Arabian Nights or The Odyssey. All done up pretty hokey, about as realistic as a Schwartzenager film or Mr. Bean. Sure, I gripe because they turned The Last Temptation of Christ to garbage, but it's really no worse a travesty than any other "religious" film. However, if I want to study religion or sociology I don't sit in a movie house to do it.

That would be very simplistic on your part. Heston, Schwarzenegger, Reagan and Gibson may have their own personal beliefs, but they had to work within the increasingly liberal guidelines of the Hollywood establishment (Heston and Reagan's times are very different from Arnold and Mel's). This shows in their movies--"Terminator", "Conspiracy Theory", and all the other movies are not exactly simbols of "religious conservatism", are they???

Finally, as you know, Gibson's movie hasn't been exactly welcome by Hollywood. So, please don't just mention the names of Arnold, Mel, etc. and go for a more interesting analysis. If you pay attention to the way sex, homosexuality, abortion, and other issues are presented by Hollywood, you cannot but conclude that it has been taken by the liberals.

Why? Do you really think disorganized religion is better (see the Protestant camp)?

Some of the best things in human civilization are the result of organization. Al the accomplishments in the space program, the discovery of countless medicines, law and order, security, democracy, the Red Cross, the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa), etc.

Of course, everything human can have a dark side. You have a dark side (that probably doesn't mean that you have no regard for yourself). The government of the U.S. has a dark side (I doubt that you would have no regard for it). We are all human with our own successes and failures, and we belong to groups with their own histories, sucessess and failures.

Organized religion is just another human endeavor, with its victories, and its sins. Just like you and me.

[quote="maliagar
Some of the best things in human civilization are the result of organization. Al the accomplishments in the space program[/quote]

Like what?

As for religion....From a base of false belief is bred stupidity. Stupidity becomes like a self-organizing system when enough mindless folk get together, and a church is formed.

Now that a group of a billion people (the Catholic Church) exists, it is impossible for anyone to look at what they are doing, and say, " holy ****, we were WRONG for a few thousand years..."

People cannot admit that a billion people can be wrong, and that is just too bad. When beliefs are entrenched, they won't change.

45% of Americans think that the Earth is only 8000 years old, and that evolution didn't happen...

A whole nation of bints... oh, boy...

Religion and god are for scared people.

Don't be scared, people.

I really wish people would take at least cursory glance into the world of logic. It is a basic, simple premise that it is NOT possible to prove a negative. My faith is in what is proved, and doesn't fail. Gravity... yes, I have faith that if I roll off my bed tomorrow, I'll still accelerate downwards at 9.8m/s*s.

Quite the opposite of religious faith, which is based in being scared, and it takes NOTHING to believe in it, except a large dose of NOTHING.

When I want to believe in childish notions the scientist in me slaps me upside the head and back into reality.