The Moose Hole - Review of The Passion of the Christ

[MickeyMoose15]

Released February 25th, 2004

Director: Mel Gibson

Starring: James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Francesco Cabras, Rosalinda Celentano, Claudia Gerini, Ivano Marescotti, Matt Patresi, Sergio Rubini

Premise: The Passion of The Christ" is a film about the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life. The film opens in the Garden of Olives (Gethsemane) where Jesus has gone to pray after the Last Supper. Jesus resists Satan's temptations. Betrayed by Judas Inscariot, Jesus is arrested and taken back to within the city walls of Jerusalem where the leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his trial results in a condemnation to death. Jesus is brought before Pilate, the Roman Governor of Palestine, who listens to the accusations leveled at him by the Pharisees. Realizing he is confronting a political conflict, Pilate defers to King Herod in the matter. Herod returns Jesus to Pilate who gives the crowd a choice between Jesus and the criminal Barabbas. The crowd chooses to have Barabbas set free and condemn Jesus. Jesus is handed over to the Roman soldiers and flagellated. Unrecognizable now, he is brough back before Pilate, who presents him to the crowd as if to say "is this not enough?" It is not. Pilate washes his hands of the entire dilemma, ordering his men to do as the crowd wishes. Jesus is presented with the cross and is ordered to carry it through the streets of Jerusalem all the way up to Golgotha. On Golgotha, Jesus is nailed to the cross and undergoes his last temptation - the fear that he has been abandoned by his Father. He overcomes this fear, looks at Mary, his Holy Mother, and makes the pronouncement which only she can fully understand, "it is accomplished." He then dies: "into Thy hands I commend my Spirit." At the moment of death, nature itself overturns.

What has this country come to when a man can’t make a purely inspirational retelling of a story that is the basis of his entire religious beliefs? Has America become a fascist state? Is the United States of America under Communist control? That would appear so with the immense outcry against Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ from the Jewish community who believes this will result in a resurgence of anti-Semitic feelings amongst the movie-going public, a claim that has no justification. Too many people in this country have fallen for the liberal lie of “Separation of Church and State” which does not exist in any shape or form in the United States Constitution. The only thing that comes close to that is the “Establishment Clause” which states that federal government will not choose any religion for the basis of its country nor will it restrict religious freedom. Hmmm … That’s funny! Doesn’t sound like our country today, now does it? ....

Click Here to Read the Full Review! (http://www.hostultra.com/~TheMooseHole/The%20Passion%20of%20the%20Christ.htm)

[JustaFied]

He's got the right to make this movie (he did make this movie) and people have the right to criticize it. That's freedom of speech. Where has the government been involved in this at all? How does this have anything to do with the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment?

[MickeyMoose15]

What I am saying is that the radicals are trying to restrict religion in America. You had activist judges out there making decisions to remove The Ten Commandments from public view in a governmental place of business and you have several politicians advocating that 'God' be removed from money, the pledge of alligiance, etc. The government is being too restrictive of religion in the modern day and this relates to this film. I am not saying the government wants to restrict this film but that they are restricting Jesus (God) in almost every other place.

I am also referring to the many people who are saying Mel Gibson should not make this film because he is a traditionalist christian and the comments made by his father.

I am siding with Mel Gibson ... Don't take my sarcasm too seriously.

[JustaFied]

People have the right to say Mel Gibson shouldn't have made this movie or at least that he should have done it differently. It'll probably be a big hit at the box office, and that's what dictates these things in the end, actually.

I would say that it's the radicals who are trying to impose religion upon America. The rest of us just want the freedom to choose, yes or no.

The federal judge had the the Ten Commandments removed from a state building. You are free to post them at your home or your place of business or anywhere else. The government is not restricting practice of religion otherwise. You can go to church or synagogue or mosque whenever you choose.

Other than that, I'm glad to hear your opinion on this movie. It's generating quite a buzz in this country, isn't it?

[MickeyMoose15]

People have the right to say Mel Gibson shouldn't have made this movie or at least that he should have done it differently. It'll probably be a big hit at the box office, and that's what dictates these things in the end, actually.

I am not saying they don't ... I just believe they have no basis to say it since they are making comments about how this MIGHT cause anti-Semitism but they haven't even seen the film and some even refuse to see it.

I would say that it's the radicals who are trying to impose religion upon America. The rest of us just want the freedom to choose, yes or no.

I think it is the other way around ... Protestanism (a branch of Chrisitianity) was the founding religion of this country and no one can deny that, therefore we should have slightly more embraciveness toward it. The "Establishment Clause" advocates the freedom of religion but ALSO the right not to restrict it, which I think that is what they are doing with Christianity.

The federal judge had the the Ten Commandments removed from a state building. You are free to post them at your home or your place of business or anywhere else. The government is not restricting practice of religion otherwise. You can go to church or synagogue or mosque whenever you choose.

But if you don't like it then don't look at it. There are tons of art work out there that is in public view that many people find offensive or something to that nature but it remains there because you have people who complain it is "freedom of expression". Allowed to have your opinion, I just don't agree with it in part.

Other than that, I'm glad to hear your opinion on this movie. It's generating quite a buzz in this country, isn't it?

$20 million possibly on opening day ... I'd say so. Thanks for the comments.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
Protestanism (a branch of Chrisitianity) was the founding religion of this country and no one can deny that, therefore we should have slightly more embraciveness toward it.

The rest of us second-class Americans be damned. I will fight you and your cohorts to the last drop of blood to keep you from turning AMERICA into a theocracy.

[MickeyMoose15]

In something like "God we trust" or "under God" that can be interpreted to mean any god, not just the particular God of the Christians.

There is no denying our American society is based on the early Anglo-Saxon religion and there should be no problem with that I believe.

I grew up in a Christian environment (and I not being very Catholic), so I am taking this from experience from where I am coming from.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
In something like "God we trust" or "under God" that can be interpreted to mean any god, not just the particular God of the Christians.

But what about those who don't believe, or "trust", in any God? Don't they have a right to use currency that doesn't refer to a deity? Kidding, in a way, because I think that's a relatively harmless example. But "establishment of religion" is fairly established in our County; did you know the U.S. Senate has a chaplain on its payroll, and they open every session with a prayer. How's that for separation?

Have you read Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists"? He wrote it in 1787 (or so) and in it he emphasizes the importance of creating "a wall between church and state". He uses those exact words, so this idea in our soceity is not a new one. It's also part of our tradition, just as the underlying Christian morality may be. Many Supreme Court decisions over the years have reinforced this "wall".

Are you really 17 (as your profile indicates)? I admire your passion about these issues as well as your interest in movies. Keep an open mind, and always hear out the other side. That's freedom of speech!

[MickeyMoose15]

But what about those who don't believe, or "trust", in any God? Don't they have a right to use currency that doesn't refer to a deity? Kidding, in a way, because I think that's a relatively harmless example. But "establishment of religion" is fairly established in our County; did you know the U.S. Senate has a chaplain on its payroll, and they open every session with a prayer. How's that for separation?

Atheism, in my opinion and the opinion of many philosophers, leads to anarchy and/or trouble in that's person's life and with themselves. The inclusion of the word "God" on currency, in the pledge, etc. shows that the United States is a country that respects values, morals, has a "connection" with divinity, in a way or, better yet, a concrete sense of right and wrong.

We also have the belief in this country of majority rules and, not saying this works all the time, but Catholics are in the majority here in America, so it makes sense the government would side more with them then say Buddism or Hindu or something like that.

Have you read Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists"? He wrote it in 1787 (or so) and in it he emphasizes the importance of creating "a wall between church and state". He uses those exact words, so this idea in our soceity is not a new one. It's also part of our tradition, just as the underlying Christian morality may be. Many Supreme Court decisions over the years have reinforced this "wall".

But in the process, that wall is restricting Christianity. There is a great respect in this country for many religions (Islam, on the decline due to the events of Sept. 11th, sad to say) but Catholicism has been a religion that has been severely bashed by nativists of this country, due to the large amount of unskilled Catholic immigrants who, for minimal pay, took the jobs of many Americans, not just in the late 1800's but the early 1900's as well. Many don't remember that the KKK, after WWI, went after, not just blacks, but Jew, Catholics, immigrants, and anybody else who didn't apply to their line of Protestant thinking.

Based on Jefferson's letter, you have to remember that Jefferson was a deist, who believes that God created the world but just left it to work like a clock and that God would not interfere with the world, except for a few moments of deep necessity. Here is the more specific term: The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority. So, I think this is what our government was presenting what Deists did in their religion, a recognition of God in our currency, monuments, etc.

And, at the time of the letter, the Americans were still in a deep war (of words and feelings) with the British and therefore has great resentment of them, including the idea of the Church of England. So, in part, there is some conflict of interest from Jefferson, who still felt hostile to the British sense of rule with their church.

I am guess it comes back to that "Ten Commandments" in Alabama. By taking that away, that contradicts the "freedom of religion". Granted the government isn't suppose to take up any singular religion but more religious convictions have been taken up by people since the early days of the country especially during and after the Civil War.

But this is just where I am coming from.

Are you really 17 (as your profile indicates)? I admire your passion about these issues as well as your interest in movies. Keep an open mind, and always hear out the other side. That's freedom of speech!

Thanks. I try my best to listen to everyone's opinion.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
In something like "God we trust" or "under God" that can be interpreted to mean any god, not just the particular God of the Christians.


And what of those who do not wish to delve into the possibility of something higher than themselves?

Are we just supposed to have religion shoved into our faces everywhere we turn?

[MickeyMoose15]

You can ignore it. You don't hear the cries of the atheists out there saying this is horrible or discriminatory or something like that. If this was a really big problem, wouldn't you think the Hindus or Muslims or whatever would be voicing their protest as well? But they aren't.

Unfortunately they are in the minority in this country and in most large countries as well.

I don't want to get into a heated battle of "my God is better then your whatever" ... This is how I view it and all I know is that Christianity is in the majority and that everybody is just going to have to tolerate it because it's not like it is saying "CONVERT UNBELIEVER" or something like that. But that's just me.

[HorseradishTree]

Well, I'm glad that's how you feel, but unfortunately that's not how everyone is. A girl at school told me this straight to my face:

"Don't you find it disheartening that you're going to hell?"

Yikes. I don't think she has too many friends.

[MickeyMoose15]

That is in bad taste, definite to say.

[JustaFied]

Mickey,

There's a thread here a few down from this one that's titled "Religion in Cinema". Read through the posts there, they're all extremely interesting and well-written, particularly those from Anduril, a guy who's studying for his Ph.D. in theology. He knows his stuff.

In particular, there are several posts relating to the anti-semitism that's surrounded the death of Jesus both at that time and in the 2000 years since. It might be valuable in helping to better understand the Jewish community's sensitivity to this subject and this film.

[MickeyMoose15]

Thanks.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Anduril, a guy who's studying for his Ph.D. in theology.


Thanks for the generous comments JustaFied. I appreciate it.

Just a correction, however... I'm working towards my Ph.D. in Ancient History with concentrations in Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the ancient Near East. My Ph.D. will not have a theology component. My Ph.D. program starts September, 2004. Right now, I'm writing the thesis in my M.A. prgram in Religious Studies where I also focus on Hebrew Bible (though I've taken other courses in History & Classics). My undergraduate degree is the only degree that I've taken or will take that has a theology component. Still, I am interested in theology and have studied it on my own quite extensively.

[JustaFied]

Sorry, my mistake. I guess if you were getting an advanced degree in theology it would be a Th.D., not a Ph.D. For some reason I thought you were studying to join the clergy, maybe because of your knowledge and obvious passion in this field. If you don't mind my asking, what are you planning to do with the Ph.D., perhaps teach at the university level?

My grandfather got a Th.D., then he went and got a Ph.D. in philosophy of religion. He taught for a few years at a "secular" university but then returned to the seminary where he taught for many years. He was an academic, but he was also a committed Christian, and he felt he accomplished more by returning to teach at the religious institution. I'm sure he would have found plenty to discuss in "The Passions of the Christ".

[anduril]

I will teach in ancient Near Eastern history, Classical Studies, or Hebrew Bible. Exactly where is difficult to say...

I plan to return to Edmonton, Alberta after my education in the States so my choices are somewhat limited. I'll either teach at the University of Alberta, which is essentially the same as the numerous state universities in the US, or I'll teach at what in Canada is called a "University College". These are private institutions, which quite often, though not always, have a religious affiliation of some sort. In Edmonton, it would be Taylor University College (where I did my undergraduate degree), Concordia University College, or The Kings University College. All three of these have religious affliations (Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed, in that order). It may also be possible that Grant MacEwan University College will have openings in my field by that time. It has no religious affiliation. There are a couple of seminaries and Bible colleges in my area too and they are options. I doubt, however, that I'll find myself there, at least at the outset of my career. I want to pursue research and these sorts of institutions tend to emphasize teaching over scholarship.

Did your grandfather publish? If so, would you mind telling me his name?

BTW, you are more or less correct that the Th.D. is the advanced degree for theology, although it's possible to have a theology component in a Ph.D. program depending on the institution and conversely it's possible to get a Th.D. and work in biblical studies and history rather than theology. The degrees sometimes overlap a bit in what they cover. The problem with Th.D.s is that they are less marketable at "secular" universities because of the perception of religious bias.

[JustaFied]

My grandfather did publish several books, all in the field of religion / Christianity. His name was John Newport. He went back for his Ph.D. after working as a minister (Southern Baptist) for 10-15 years. The Ph.D. certainly helped him land the teaching position at the "secular" university (Rice University). I remember hearing him say that; in fact, he probably would have had little chance at the position with only the Th.D. But, most of those who pursue the Th.D. in the first place are probably intending to joint the clergy anyway.

The life of the mind: I admire those who pursue it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
But, most of those who pursue the Th.D. in the first place are probably intending to joint the clergy anyway.

Actually, not really. Most clergy don't even go that far, usually stopping with a Master of Divinity.

(Aside). I love the arrogance of that degree title: Master of Divinity. There's almost something sinful in awarding a degree like that. :-)

Some clergy, especially in High Church traditions like Anglicanism/Episcopalian or Catholicism, may pursue a Th.D. because they are often encouraged to pursue scholarship in their parish unlike ministers in the lower Church traditions.

The Th.D. is perfect, though, for people who want to teach or be administrators in seminaries, divinity schools, and bible colleges.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril

Actually, not really. Most clergy don't even go that far, usually stopping with a Master of Divinity.


Another correction...geez, I need to get a fact checker.

Funny about the Master of Divinity name. It's enough to give someone a God complex.

I wish I had a better knowledge of the Bible and the events within it, if only to have a better frame of reference in which to judge religious films like "The Passion of the Christ". My biblical knowledge pales in comparision to yours or to my Grandfathers. It's important to understand the context of the film instead of just taking on faith everything that Mel Gibson dishes out. The anti-semitism issue (which you've so ably described) is one example of that. A strange parallel example that keeps coming to mind is a person whose primary opinion on the Kennedy assassination comes from watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", which is a misleading and irresponsible film.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I wish I had a better knowledge of the Bible and the events within it, if only to have a better frame of reference in which to judge religious films like "The Passion of the Christ". My biblical knowledge pales in comparision to yours or to my Grandfathers.

Hey, there's no time like the present to learn... the Bible is, contrary to some opinions, a thoroughly engrossing read when you get used to its literary styles. Also, I'd welcome any questions you might have about "the Bible and the events within it." Although no person is free of bias, I think you'd find that I'm able to present these things from various different perspectives. Feel free to email or message me. Or, we could start a thread on the Bible in the Lounge. I'd certainly contribute. I can't resist talking Bible; I find it to be one of the most intriguing and exciting works of literature ever compiled. I also happen to think it has enormous practical relevance and insight for understanding life and its purpose.


Originally posted by JustaFied
It's important to understand the context of the film instead of just taking on faith everything that Mel Gibson dishes out. The anti-semitism issue (which you've so ably described) is one example of that. A strange parallel example that keeps coming to mind is a person whose primary opinion on the Kennedy assassination comes from watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", which is a misleading and irresponsible film.

I agree. This is a point that I tried to make in "Art and Audience." Many directors make films on topics that require more than just pop-culture knowledge or an interest in films to evaluate. There are even some directors who are astonishingly well read and whose ability to put complex ideas on screen in thought-provoking ways is brilliant to say the least.

I'm likewise very influenced by Stone's JFK on the matter of Kennedy's assassination, though like you I also recognize it is preposterous in some of its claims and inaccurate in many of its details. In that case though, I imagine so many of the important facts are still classified.

[tabuno]

The Passion of Christ didn't seem to be any more grapic than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. The movie did give me a tinge of anger with regard to the Jewish high priests and it appeared to be more of a broad consensus about Jesus condemnation with a few weak pleas for justice. The Roman leaders seemed to come of this on top while the Roman soldiers came out the worst.

The movie did offer one of the extravagant polar torments between suffering, sacrifice, and forgiveness.

As a non-practicing Buddhist, I also feel a bit whiplashed by earlier comments about Catholicism and its predominate role in United States society and government and the seeming preference of some authors towards such a religion using the Ten Commandments as an example as opposed to other religions or philosophies. I thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one.

[Johann]

Originally posted by tabuno
[BI thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one. [/B]

It does, tabuno.
Remember, this site is small, these are the voices of only a few people.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by tabuno
I also feel a bit whiplashed by earlier comments about Catholicism and its predominate role in United States society and government and the seeming preference of some authors towards such a religion.

I was also taken aback. I didn't expect to find such degree of ignorance and xenophobia in these forums. I used the posts to illustrate to my kids how there are Americans whose aim is to establish a theocracy, by gradually chipping away at the thin wall separating Church and State. My kids now understand more clearly that there are people who believe that "we have the belief in this country of majority rules". My kids also understand that there are Christians like Mr. Anduril who are willing to patiently engage these individuals, in an attempt to provide much needed guidance and education.

I thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one.

It still does, tabuno. But we cannot take it for granted. We have to become more vocal and active in supporting politicians and institutions that uphold the basic principles that define these United States of America.

[MickeyMoose15]

Thing is ... People have to remember that our country was founded by Protestants (a branch of Christianity) ... there is no denying that. So, as much as many want to believe that America is the place of religious tolerance, they have to believe that we would have a great connection with Christianity then with other religions, and Christianity only in its Protestant form. For example, only one president in our nation's history has been a pure Roman Catholic (Kennedy) and he didn't last too long. All others have been protestant. Another reason why I think Kerry won't win but that is beside the point.

[MickeyMoose15]

Majority does rule ... We can't listen to every hair-brain miniority that comes and says we our not getting what we want. Gay marriage ... for example ... 60-65% of the country doesn't want it but the activist judges listen to the minority and say gay marriage should be allowed. How does that work?

[MickeyMoose15]

And I am not saying we should establish a theocracy ... Is the country telling you what religion to join? Or what ones are right or wrong? No. And I am not saying that either. What I am saying is what is wrong with "In God We Trust" on currency? You can't imagine, if you aren't Christian, that that "God" is your god? And if you are Atheist, well then I feel sorry for you because everybody should have a sense of spirituality in you but if you don't then that is your choice. But they shouldn't ruin it for the people who are religious, because believe it or not Atheism is in the deep minority in this country, so they shouldn't push around people who don't find "In God We Trust" objectionable. My stance isn't ignorance, it's common sense.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
Thing is ... People have to remember that our country was founded by Protestants (a branch of Christianity) ... there is no denying that. So, as much as many want to believe that America is the place of religious tolerance, they have to believe that we would have a great connection with Christianity then with other religions, and Christianity only in its Protestant form. For example, only one president in our nation's history has been a pure Roman Catholic (Kennedy) and he didn't last too long. All others have been protestant. Another reason why I think Kerry won't win but that is beside the point.

You are right, MickeyMoose15, that largely Christian immigration to North America eventually led to the establishment of three countries on this continent: Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico.

Nevertheless, the immigrants who came to the United States sought to escape the religious intolerance that prevented them for practicing their beliefs in Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and other European countries (most of which had official state religions at the time). These immigrants wanted to have the freedom to practice their particular forms of Protestantism without the interference of state-run churches and church-run politics. The Establishment Clause, therefore, sets out this principle to prevent the creation of a national or state religion.

Of course, the immigrants who ultimately formed the United States of America formulated the Constitution and other documents guided by Western traditions. They did not, and indeed could not, have envisioned a country with people expressing beliefs from outside these Western traditions and so these historic documents affirm trust in God as it was understood by its writers. The United States of America of today is a very different country than the one initially created and it has adapted to understand that the principle of religious tolerance first laid out in the Establishment Clause ought to protect the adherents of other religious traditions or those who choose not to practice religion at all. To this end, its institutions should not enforce a Christian worldview, Protestant or Catholic, on its citizens.

At the same time, the United States of America, in my opinion, should not embrace a policy of secular humanism in its institutions. Rather, it should continue to allow the free expression of religious beliefs in its institutions; that is, all citizens, whether Buddhists, atheists, Christians, or otherwise, should have the freedom to express their religious convictions free from persecution or ridicule. They should also be allowed to draw on the moral guidance these convictions give them as they deliberate policy and formulate legislation. No law should exist to ban religious expression (Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise), where that religious expression is, as much as possible, consistent with the pursuits of a free, moral, and democratic society.

Canada is a country that has embraced secular humanism as its unofficial religion and so it increasingly excises any form of religion from Government, its institutions, and its documents. In the process, it is moving increasingly towards a state similar to France, where citizens are actually denied any public expression of religious conviction. The end result is the suppression of religious expression. I pray that the United States of America never follows this road.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
Majority does rule ... We can't listen to every hair-brain miniority that comes and says we our not getting what we want. Gay marriage ... for example ... 60-65% of the country doesn't want it but the activist judges listen to the minority and say gay marriage should be allowed. How does that work?

On the contrary, majority does not rule... the principles of any free society should seek, by definition, to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens (while recognizing the responsibilities of citizens to contribute to a moral and just society) and, as such, the Constitution and other founding documents of the United States of America are designed to protect the rights of minorities and ensure that these rights are never held hostage by the majority.

[anduril]

On the issue of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse... I believe that the monument should not have been removed. It is a form of religious expression; it in no way abrogates the laws of the United States nor makes those laws subject to this religious document.

Furthermore, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law codes are, apart from any religious value they may have, foundational to the development of jurisprudence in the Western tradition on which the laws of the United States of America are founded. To display them in a courthouse, therefore, does little more than acknowledge their historic role in this development; they are in this sense no more than historical artifacts. In my opinion, it does not constitute an endorsement of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam as religions of the state.

[MickeyMoose15]

But we have majority rule ... Look at the amendment proposed to ban gay marriage, for example. It has to have a 2/3 majority of both the house and the senate and then a 3/4 majority of the states. I agree that America should be a country to protect the rights and privilages of the minority but that is not how laws are exactly passed in this country and unless that minority eventually becomes a majority, they often don't get too much accomplished in the way of change. It's harsh but it's how it is.

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril
On the issue of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse... I believe that the monument should not have been removed. It is a form of religious expression; it in no way abrogates the laws of the United States nor makes those laws subject to this religious document.

Furthermore, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law codes are, apart from any religious value they may have, foundational to the development of jurisprudence in the Western tradition on which the laws of the United States of America are founded. To display them in a courthouse, therefore, does little more than acknowledge their historic role in this development; they are in this sense no more than historical artifacts. In my opinion, it does not constitute an endorsement of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam as religions of the state.

Exactly ... You have all these public displays are arts and such (one such example was someone talking to me one day who said they had this traveling exhibit in which a cross was placed in a jar full of urine or something like that, which sickened me) and even if they are offensive, we can't touch them because that is called "freedom of expression". But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, we can't claim that but apparently it is impeding on someone's religious stance. I know I said the minority didn't get much done before but now you are getting these whiners who manipulate the system (activist judges) and get their way not through the correct way but through making up laws they want, not what the majority wants.

[MickeyMoose15]

This is going to be a last comment, with obligations and new events pressuring me to focus more on my life outside of my site and movie discussion, but I will say this ...

I agree that this film MAY have had the potential to create anti-Semetism but the simple fact of the matter is, it hasn't. Where are the throngs of anti-Semits they said this film was going to create? If they were as big as many may say then wouldn't the press, who have been grilling Gibson and badgering him about this claims for over a year, want to point to the fact that his film has does what they said it would? But if they aren't reporting this then it clearly isn't happening in such a large extent to prove their claims right.

I agree that other countries are much more anti-Semetic then we are but if they have concerns about this film internationally then concerns to Gibson on that level, don't make it sound like America or the Christians in general are a bunch of anti-Semits. I know no one here is specifically saying that but to me, as well as a bunch of my friends and fellow students at my high school, believe that is how it coming off. I don't know how or if Gibson will release this internationally but if he does, he should take caution as you have clearly said before.

This movie is and will be a powerful force ... The film has already made $120 million in just five days and the way it has worked at the box office in those five days, many believe this film could unseat Titanic as the highest grossing film of all time, domestically. Whether this happens or not, this film will touch a lot of people. The basic fact is that the majority of people seeing this film know the back story of Jesus and what his death meant. The message, a message many will see clearly in this film, promotes love and forgiveness, not revenge or hatred. Hatred is a thing this film is clearly not promoting but if anybody

You brought up the example of your non-Christian friend but he is clearly in the deep minority and I am as well. I am not Christian but I come from a clearly Christian background as well as Christian education, so though I don't clearly believe everything the most Christians do, I still believe in a higher being and understand what the Christians stand for. There aren't going to be many who go into this film with no idea what is going on, nor will there be many who understand but don't believe fully. So to believe that a few will come away from this angry and upset, those numbers will clearly be very unsignificant.

I am not giving Hollywood free rein to make what ever film they want but to say a film like this shouldn't be made because it has the potential to do something is somewhat ridiculous. If that were true then no film would ever be made. Look at the Matrix ... It had the potential to create a wrong message (whether it did or not is still in debate) but look how many people it affected and turned them on to subjects like philosophy, religion, Japanese culture, etc.

Every film has the potential to do something the filmmakers didn't clearly intend. It happens. The filmmakers should not be held responsible for the misunderstanding by some people of the message they are trying to express. What Gibson has done is a magnificent piece of work. Whatever bad you or anybody else may say about this film, the good clearly outweighs the bad. The message, whatever they may try to say, is about love and forgiveness. The American people are smart, though at times they may not act it, as well as the majority of the people seeing this film. They do not need a post-script spelling out to them what they should come away from this film with. I don't attest to that at all.

So, you can all discuss amongst yourselves whether this film did or did not do what they say might have happened but I know where I stand. I don't believe this film was created out of hatred. I don't believe the majority seeing this will be filled with hatred. Will some leave feeling angry? Yes, I feel sorry for the Jewish people for that one person, but why should the majority be affected and ruined of a great experience for one or two idiots (clearly the minority)? It doesn't make sense to me or to a lot of the Christians who have greatly enjoyed this film and have been moved emotionally. And I bring up this last statement not out of hatred for the Jewish people but out of reaffirmation of what I believe they should be feeling ... The Jewish people have clearly gone through a lot but isn't their stance suppose to show how strong and solid in their beliefs they are? In all the centuries of hatred they have gone through, they still stand firm and don't let things like this affect them.

I know the Christians ... Their message is not of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" like the Old Testament vindicates. It is of turning the other cheek, not letting someone get you down ... That is what they believe. So if someone leaves this film feeling hatred, they clearly don't understand the message of the church or of Mr. Gibson. One who clearly understands the message this film expresses and what the story has expressed for nearly 2,000 years is that of love and forgiveness, not prejudice and hate.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril
On the issue of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse... I believe that the monument should not have been removed. It is a form of religious expression; it in no way abrogates the laws of the United States nor makes those laws subject to this religious document.

Furthermore, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law codes are, apart from any religious value they may have, foundational to the development of jurisprudence in the Western tradition on which the laws of the United States of America are founded. To display them in a courthouse, therefore, does little more than acknowledge their historic role in this development; they are in this sense no more than historical artifacts. In my opinion, it does not constitute an endorsement of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam as religions of the state.


I've got to disagree with you here Anduril. First of all, you admit "it is a form of religious expression". That's not the job of the government, to deliver religious expression. In fact, it's unconstitutional. How is such religious "expression" different from the religious "establishment" that is prohibited by the 1st Amendment? How is a person, particularly a young person or a person without much education, supposed to be able to differentiate between the two?

True, the morality and the laws of the United States are largely based upon tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but they are done so in an indirect way. 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian, so it's no wonder that the value system, and thus the laws, of the United States reflect, to some extent, the teachings of the Bible. The key here, to me, is that this "nexus" between the laws and the underlying religious morality is indirect. That line is crossed, flagrantly, when these religious documents themselves are incorporated into the laws or brought into the governmental "arena". That is, to me, a glaring example of "establishment of religion". What is a Jew, or a Muslim, or an agnostic, or a 10-year old kid, supposed to think when they walk into this governmental building, paid for by their own taxes dollars, and see a large granite copy of the Ten Commandments?

Also, several of these "Commandments" are not in fact illegal under state law, and it is potentially confusing to have them posted at a courthouse, which serves as the primary place to argue the legality of the actual state laws themselves. It is not illegal to "covet thy neighbor's wife" nor to "worship any other God besides myself". If you want to codify that into law, do it through the legislative process.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
This is going to be a last comment, with obligations and new events pressuring me to focus more on my life outside of my site and movie discussion, but I will say this ...

I agree that this film MAY have had the potential to create anti-Semetism but the simple fact of the matter is, it hasn't. Where are the throngs of anti-Semits they said this film was going to create? If they were as big as many may say then wouldn't the press, who have been grilling Gibson and badgering him about this claims for over a year, want to point to the fact that his film has does what they said it would? But if they aren't reporting this then it clearly isn't happening in such a large extent to prove their claims right.

No one ever said there would be throngs...


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I know the Christians ... Their message is not of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" like the Old Testament vindicates.

The Old Testament does not do this... you missed the end of that passage: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I've got to disagree with you here Anduril. First of all, you admit "it is a form of religious expression". That's not the job of the government, to deliver religious expression. In fact, it's unconstitutional. How is such religious "expression" different from the religious "establishment" that is prohibited by the 1st Amendment? How is a person, particularly a young person or a person without much education, supposed to be able to differentiate between the two?

True, the morality and the laws of the United States are largely based upon tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but they are done so in an indirect way. 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian, so it's no wonder that the value system, and thus the laws, of the United States reflect, to some extent, the teachings of the Bible. The key here, to me, is that this "nexus" between the laws and the underlying religious morality is indirect. That line is crossed, flagrantly, when these religious documents themselves are incorporated into the laws or brought into the governmental "arena". That is, to me, a glaring example of "establishment of religion". What is a Jew, or a Muslim, or an agnostic, or a 10-year old kid, supposed to think when they walk into this governmental building, paid for by their own taxes dollars, and see a large granite copy of the Ten Commandments?

Also, several of these "Commandments" are not in fact illegal under state law, and it is potentially confusing to have them posted at a courthouse, which serves as the primary place to argue the legality of the actual state laws themselves. It is not illegal to "covet thy neighbor's wife" nor to "worship any other God besides myself". If you want to codify that into law, do it through the legislative process.

Well, first of all, a Jew and a Muslim will have no problem with the Ten Commandments seeing as they are a part of their religious tradition too. In fact, the Ten Commandments are from the Hebrew Bible!

So, would you be offended if the Hammurabi Law Code were placed in a courthouse? Or, how about the Justinian code or Napoleonic code?

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril


No one ever said there would be throngs...



The Old Testament does not do this... you missed the end of that passage: "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord."

They way this has been expressed in the media, sure made it sound that way.

But it does express the message of "tooth for a tooth", which was the belief before Jesus came along. Whether the Old Testament really promotes this belief or not, this is how it was believed back in Jesus' time, by most people living at that time, Jewish or Gentile.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
But we have majority rule ... Look at the amendment proposed to ban gay marriage, for example. It has to have a 2/3 majority of both the house and the senate and then a 3/4 majority of the states. I agree that America should be a country to protect the rights and privilages of the minority but that is not how laws are exactly passed in this country and unless that minority eventually becomes a majority, they often don't get too much accomplished in the way of change. It's harsh but it's how it is.

You are only talking about one part of the system.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
They way this has been expressed in the media, sure made it sound that way.

Some in the media sure... but geez the media over-exaggerate everything... they make it seem as though Ben and J-Lo's relationship, now former relationship, was the most important thing in American history since the Declaration of Independence and that every American was watching with bated breath at what would happen next. Go to the sources, man: that's why I gave you a link to the ADL website so you could see what they really said not what the media contorted.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
But it does express the message of "tooth for a tooth", which was the belief before Jesus came along. Whether the Old Testament really promotes this belief or not, this is how it was believed back in Jesus' time, by most people living at that time, Jewish or Gentile.

It wasn't that simple... not in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)... read it man. Jesus' teachings come out of the Hebrew Bible. Read Lev 19:11-18, 34 (esp. v.16-18, 34); Prov. 25:21 for example.

And, boy do you make huge assumptions and sweeping generalizations in your statements... I suppose you can prove what Jews or Gentiles thought back then, eh? Contrary to your claim, there are many other people who preached love in those times and there are many Hellenistic parallels, for starters, that can be drawn with the teachings of Jesus.

[MickeyMoose15]

Like I said, I am no longer going to comment and let my statements stand.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
Like I said, I am no longer going to comment and let my statements stand.

They've been impeached.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril


So, would you be offended if the Hammurabi Law Code were placed in a courthouse? Or, how about the Justinian code or Napoleonic code?

I think it gets back to defining "establishment of religion" and what kind of appearance there would be of the state endorsing a particular type of religion. It's a case-by-case type of thing. We'll leave that to the lawyers.

I'm going to try to move away from this discussion also. I find Constitutional law to be a fascinating subject, but it's also one that's not particularly relevant to the subject of film, which is the purpose of this web site. I originally challenged Mickey because he seemed to be claiming that The Passions of the Christ was being censored in some way, or that there was some "freedom of expression" involved that was in jeopardy.

Also, Anduril, I appreciate your offer from many posts ago regarding continued discussion of the Bible and religion in general. I may take you up on that at some point in the future, if a particular Biblical question comes to mind. I agree that the Bible can be a fascinating text; it's necessarily relevant to both believers and non-believers simply because of its dominant presence in our society and our history.

I remember you raising the "context" issue in the art/audience thread. It's certainly important for a viewer (and a filmmaker) to have a good understanding of the time period and events surrounding those of the film, particularly when the film takes on larger, historical subject matter like the crucifixion of Christ or the assassination of Kennedy. One question along those lines for you right now: did you ever see the P.T. Anderson film, Magnolia? At the end of that film, it rains frogs. This is clearly an allusion to the same event in the Book of Exodus when God rains frogs on the Egyptians because they won't release Moses and the Israelites from slavery. But, I don't see the point of its use in the film. There doesn't appear to be any obvious similarities in the situations of the characters in the film versus those from Exodus. Are they "enslaved" in some way, is that the point he's trying to make? I don't see any point in it; I think it was simply an empty stunt on his part. Any thoughts?

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I remember you raising the "context" issue in the art/audience thread. It's certainly important for a viewer (and a filmmaker) to have a good understanding of the time period and events surrounding those of the film, particularly when the film takes on larger, historical subject matter like the crucifixion of Christ or the assassination of Kennedy. One question along those lines for you right now: did you ever see the P.T. Anderson film, Magnolia? At the end of that film, it rains frogs. This is clearly an allusion to the same event in the Book of Exodus when God rains frogs on the Egyptians because they won't release Moses and the Israelites from slavery. But, I don't see the point of its use in the film. There doesn't appear to be any obvious similarities in the situations of the characters in the film versus those from Exodus. Are they "enslaved" in some way, is that the point he's trying to make? I don't see any point in it; I think it was simply an empty stunt on his part. Any thoughts?

For some reason, I can't remember why, I never finished Magnolia (I watched only about two-thirds of the movie) and I've never gotten around to seeing it again. Now, I guess I should... if I should in the next little while, I'll take on your questions.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril


For some reason, I can't remember why, I never finished Magnolia (I watched only about two-thirds of the movie) and I've never gotten around to seeing it again. Now, I guess I should... if I should in the next little while, I'll take on your questions.

Whoops, sorry to ruin it for you. I found it to be a pretty mediocre movie anyway. Curious as to what you'll think about the ending.

Any other subtle Biblical allusions you can think of, either clever or not-so-clever? I'm sure there are many out there that I've passed right over. What did you think of Bergman's take on the Book of Revelations in The Seventh Seal ?

[Johann]

Having watched The Seventh Seal with anduril, I have to say he didn't like it.

His response to it was "ambiguous" to say the least...

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Whoops, sorry to ruin it for you. I found it to be a pretty mediocre movie anyway. Curious as to what you'll think about the ending.

Any other subtle Biblical allusions you can think of, either clever or not-so-clever? I'm sure there are many out there that I've passed right over. What did you think of Bergman's take on the Book of Revelations in The Seventh Seal ?

Biblical allusions are everywhere in movies. Where to start? I'm particularly fond of movies like Traffic, the Godfather, Breaking the Waves, several Carl Dreyer movies, and so many others. They all have a masterful way of engaging the Bible and theology.

Bergman is, of course, another great director whose many films interact with Christianity on several levels. Seventh Seal, as you point out, is probably Bergman's most obvious movie in this regard. Personally I'm often at odds with Bergman's philosophical assumptions; he seems to me to be a secular humanist. Though in contrast to someone like say Spielberg, Bergman seems very pessimitic about it. The Seventh Seal seems to me to concern the issue of the absence of God, especially in the face of suffering and death. Bergman seems reluctant but no less convinced of his conclusion that God doesn't exist, indeed that God can't exist.

I'd love to go in more depth but I'd have to re-watch it in order to really provide a more substantive analysis of the biblical allusions.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
Having watched The Seventh Seal with anduril, I have to say he didn't like it.

His response to it was "ambiguous" to say the least...

You're right only if you'll allow me that I thought the movie was technically brilliant and certainly thought-provoking... however, I found Bergman's underlying philosophy disconcerting and on the whole it wasn't an experience I truly can say I "enjoyed". It's definitely a movie that I will buy when I can truly afford to bring my DVD collection up to snuff. It ranks #27 on my personal 100 list.

[oscar jubis]

Some posts about The Seventh Seal newer members may wish to read:
www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3224#post 3224

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril


Biblical allusions are everywhere in movies. Where to start?

I guess it was a rather broad question. Maybe I was thinking in particular about more subtle allusions instead of larger themes in the movie? The Magnolia example is what first came to mind. Not real important, truthfully.

I didn't find The Seventh Seal to be overly inconsistent with what I know from Revelations. I thought it left open the possibility of the imminent Apocolypse. Maybe I missed the boat on that one. Not an expert on Revelations, though I would like to know a little more about it. Do you believe that John truly saw all this in a vision, or is there some other explanation. It's a very elaborate, imaginative vision, I'm sure much has been written and discussed about it. Actually, my grandfather did write about it, a book called "The Lion and the Lamb". I need to read it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I didn't find The Seventh Seal to be overly inconsistent with what I know from Revelations. I thought it left open the possibility of the imminent Apocolypse. Maybe I missed the boat on that one. Not an expert on Revelations, though I would like to know a little more about it. Do you believe that John truly saw all this in a vision, or is there some other explanation. It's a very elaborate, imaginative vision, I'm sure much has been written and discussed about it. Actually, my grandfather did write about it, a book called "The Lion and the Lamb". I need to read it.

Revelations is, perhaps, one of the most discussed books in all of the Bible and certainly the most prevalent in secular and Christian pop-culture. It is also one of the most misunderstood.

I'll leave the question of authorship aside because authorship is a contentious question with respect to nearly every biblical book; only a couple Pauline books escape from the debate unscathed.

The author of Revelations employs a genre of ancient Near Eastern literature known as apocalyptic literature. Contrary to contemporary associations, apocalyptic literature is not primarily meant to be predictive. Rather, apocalyptic literature attempts to convey ordinary events in cosmological terms usually in an attempt to comfort a religious group facing persecution. Due to its subversive goals, it is also a form of literature that relies heavily on symbols and images known to insiders but unknown to outsiders. Books that employ this genre are not necessarily and certainly not primarily intended to be predictive. In my research of Revelations, I see a book that describes a history of the church and its plight in its own age with only a few portions of the book (most notably the final two or so chapters) devoted to future events.

The Seventh Seal draws on many of the themes and imagery of Revelations. It is not, however, a re-telling of Revelations.

[Johann]

I am prone to agree that The Seventh Seal is not a re-telling of Revelations.

However, I wonder, what will the apocalypse be?

I'm hoping it involves a bottle of Merlot and a Kubrick film....

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
I am prone to agree that The Seventh Seal is not a re-telling of Revelations.

However, I wonder, what will the apocalypse be?

I'm hoping it involves a bottle of Merlot and a Kubrick film....

The Bible does not really say... it only mentions the second coming of Jesus Christ, a judgment, and the making of a new heavens and a new earth. The ideas of Left Behind, Jack van Impe, et al. are constructs of very hyper-active minds reading literature from a particular, and in my opinion very clearly wrong, ideological perspective.

Oh, but Jesus has promised to drink wine again... so the Merlot, at least, is a definite possibility!!

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by anduril


I'll leave the question of authorship aside because authorship is a contentious question with respect to nearly every biblical book; only a couple Pauline books escape from the debate unscathed.

The author of Revelations employs a genre of ancient Near Eastern literature known as apocalyptic literature. Contrary to contemporary associations, apocalyptic literature is not primarily meant to be predictive.

Thanks for the detailed analysis of Revelations. Your interpretation here is almost entirely the opposite of what I've always assumed Revelations to mean. That shows my ignorance, I admit.

A couple of follow up questions:
1) If there is some contention about the authorship of nearly every book in the Bible, then how are you so confident in the veracity of the subject matter contained in those books? Is it largely a matter of faith?

2) If the Book of Revelations is not meant to be predictive, do you still believe that the apocolypse will be a violent, bloody event as described in Revelations, or will it be more clean and orderly?

I know this has nothing to do with film; you can move it to the Lounge if you want.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
I know this has nothing to do with film; you can move it to the Lounge if you want.

I've started a new thread in the Lounge called Bible Questions to address these and any other Bible questions not directly related to film.

[anduril]

For an interesting collection of articles on the Passion and the Bible, you may want to refer to http://www.sbl-site.org/. The SBL, or Society of Biblical Literature, is one of the oldest and largest learned societies in North America. It is devoted to biblical studies. The articles currently on display at this site are written by some of North America's most recognized scholars. There are some interesting articles further down on the page that may be of unique interest to some. They are entitled, "The Problem of the Cinematic Jesus" and "Teaching Film and Bible." All in all, there is a good cross-section of learned opinion for your perusal.