Subject: Jeebus vs. Picard: an odd stray thought argument
From: David Conner [dconner69@yahoo.com]

"[T]he audience already knows what they need to know about him, brought it into the theater with them, thank you very much...."

I thought this was an interesting observation (not to mention pretty much confirming that I can feel safe in giving *The Passion* a pass myself and not miss much of interest - between this and my general distaste for graphic violence of the sadistic sort.)

The other thought it raised is, how is *The Passion* different from, say, *Star Trek: Nemesis*, which is probably just as incomprehensible to the uninitiated as the Jeebus movie is to the hypothetical extraterrestrial? Is the "exclusionary" effect a good, bad, or indifferent thing?

I don't know. I suppose one big difference is that nobody's saying that one must follow the teachings of Jean-Luc Picard or face eternal damnation. Though there is a Church of Shatner, I believe....

I'm kinda holding out for *Star Trek 14: The Passion of the Mayweather*, dealing with the suffering induced by being an extra on your own TV series....

I respond:

I don't think being exclusionary is necessarily a bad thing, and your point about *Trek* movies is a good one. But as you say, no one is holding up *Trek* as a source of moral guidance... though we could do a lot worse than the Prime Directive, and we probably have, with proselytizing religions like Christianity.

Subject: Please stick to reviewing movies.
From: Ken Longo [klongojr1@comcast.net]

As an agnostic who grew up Roman Catholic, I can appreciate what it's like to be a non-believer in our "God-fearing" society. My best friend is a devout Catholic; Most of my other friends believe in God with a rock solid certainty. That said, I think your characterization of religious Christians in your meta-review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ ("Christ on a Merry-Go-Round", March 1) is both unfair and uncharitable.

While I agree with you that a person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) often have little bearing on his or her ability to be a "loving parent" you wander into the realm of anti-religious bigotry when you suggest, in no uncertain terms, that raising children who believe in Christ is tantamount to child abuse. Likewise, your blithe dismissal of Passion's audience as bunch of delusional, uneducated, bloodthirsty yokels who believe in "fairy tales" and an "invisible superhero" trades in the silliest of East Coast liberal stereotypes about evangelical Christians and the people who inhabit America's heartland. Just look at last weekend's box office numbers.

It should be self-evident that a film which grosses over $125 million in its first five days of release, during the slowest season of the movie year has an appeal beyond what you assume to be its "target audience" of ignorant Bible Belt dwelling "Jesus freaks". The Boston area theater where I saw "Passion" last Saturday was packed, as were movie house in such diverse places as New York City, San Francisco, Dallas, Denver and Pensacola. In light of this, you dig yourself even deeper when you state:

"I've seen not one suggestion anywhere, in all the media's fawning delirium over this film, that perhaps Jesus never existed or, if he did, was nothing but a crazy guy who roamed the desert, got his brain a little too sunbaked, and merely thought he was God. "

Are you kidding?

You'd have to have lived under a rock these last several months to have avoided discussions about the historical Jesus in the media. If anything, the movie has re-vitalized longstanding historical and theological debates by making the masses aware of the issues involved.

It gets even worse:

"And there's been not one scrap of discussion about whether his legacy has been something we could have done without."

To it bluntly, we wouldn't exist.

The life of Jesus is the principal founding story of contemporary Western civilization. Were we able to travel to an alternate timeline where Jesus did not exist we'd likely find a world which would be not merely be alien to us but inhospitable to our values. What theoretical extra-terrestrials would think does not concern me in the least. We all know the story of the Passion. It's as important to us as Confucius is to the Chinese.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that I enjoy both your writing and your reviews and will no doubt continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I just wish you'd stuck to criticizing this movie on its merits, rather than making your column a laundry list of your problems with Christianity and its followers.

I respond:

the Christ ("Christ on a Merry-Go-Round", March 1) is both unfair and uncharitable.

Uncharitable? Maybe -- does feeling pity for people unable to break free of superstitious thinking count as charity? But what's unfair about it? These people are the ones making extraordinary claims -- it's fair for me to doubt the veracity of their claims, particularly in the face of zero evidence for them, as it would be fair for them to doubt my claim that I receive instruction in how to go about my daily life from the invisible transdimensional dragon who lives in my basement.

in the silliest of East Coast liberal stereotypes about evangelical Christians and the people who inhabit America's heartland.

No, I think East Coast Catholics are just as delusional. I'm equal opportunity.

Just look at last weekend's box office numbers.

I'm looking. They don't show me anything other than the number of people who paid to see the film. I can't determine from those number how many of them actually believe Jesus was anything other than a human being, or how many of them merely went to see the film out of curiosity, or how many of them wanted to see a good slasher flick.

You'd have to have lived under a rock these last several months to have avoided discussions about the historical Jesus in the media.

Were any of them seriously skeptical? None that I've seen.

To it bluntly, we wouldn't exist.

Of course we'd exist.

The life of Jesus is the principal founding story of contemporary Western civilization.

I think the pagan Romans and Greeks would have a lot to say about that, but for the sake of argument, I'll assume what you say is true. All that would mean is that Western civilization would look different. We mightn't have had the Dark Ages. We certainly wouldn't have had the Inquisition or the Holocaust (at least not in the forms we had them). Crusades? Never would have happened. Things might be worse if history had taken a different course, but they might be better.

For some very interesting and highly entertaining speculation on an alternate Europe in which Christianity did not take hold, check out the Kushiel novels by Jacqueline Carey. Good stuff.

future. I just wish you'd stuck to criticizing this movie on its merits, rather than making your column a laundry list of your problems with Christianity and its followers.

Hey, if Mel Gibson wants to shove his piety in my face, why shouldn't I shove back? Movies don't exist in a vacuum, this one more than most. Like I said in my review, you can't talk about this movie as just a movie.

The reader responds:

Thanks for the reply.

Uncharitable? Maybe -- does feeling pity for people unable to break free of superstitious thinking count as charity?

Ha, ha. Very funny. ;-)

I would submit that religion is not merely "superstitious thinking". Religion is a part of humanity's cultural, intellectual, and in some cases, ethnic identity. And our civil rights laws mention religion along with sex and race as grounds for protection from discrimination.

But what's unfair about it?

You're painting an entire group of people with the same brush. This is acceptable to a certain degree, but I think you're going a little too far in this case.

While my hyper-rational mind prevents me from taking the "leap of faith" I don't begrudge others for choosing to believe. They just have a different worldview than mine formed by different experiences. I'm in no position to judge them or their motives without having looked into their individual hearts, minds and souls.

These people are the ones making extraordinary claims -- it's fair for me to doubt the veracity of their claims, particularly in the face of zero evidence for them, as it would be fair for them to doubt my claim that I receive instruction in how to go about my daily life from the invisible transdimensional dragon who lives in my basement.

Your "invisible transdimensional dragon" isn't real, but something you made up out of thin air. Jesus, Mohammed and Siddharta Gautama were real life historical figures with thousands of years of history surrounding them. (Whether you believe the claims made about them is another thing.) This is an important reason why Christianity, in a position of weakness, was able supplant 3rd Century Mythrism and the pagan religions of the Germanic barbarians who overran the western part of the Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries.

I'm looking [at the box office numbers]. They don't show me anything other than the number of people who paid to see the film. I can't determine from those number how many of them actually believe Jesus was anything other than a human being, or how many of them merely went to see the film out of curiosity, or how many of them wanted to see a good slasher flick.

You're proving my point. This movie had wide appeal beyond "Jesus freaks". The "Religious Right" is still a small minority in our country of not more than 10% of the total population.

Of course, I'm sure Mel Gibson's rather ruthless promotional effort had a little something to do with this movie's big box office take. This movie's publicity campaign is the most brilliant I've ever seen. It's also among the most shameless.

Were any of [the news articles about Passion of the Christ] seriously skeptical? None that I've seen.

Do you read Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report or any of the major national newspapers (The Times, The Washington Post, etc) ? Or do you get your news from the tube? Or from the internet? I don't mean to be a smart ass, I'm genuinely curious.

People have been taking Gibson to task for this movie and his beliefs since before it was released. He's been front page news for months. While I can't say for certain if any his critics challenged the veracity of his beliefs or the existence of God himself, I know for a fact they've challenged his motivations and the historical accuracy of the events depicted by the film.

Then again, maybe they just couldn't find any atheists or agnostics willing to go on the record. After all, 90% of Americans believe in God. Non-believers like you and I are a pretty tiny minority in this country.

I think the pagan Romans and Greeks would have a lot to say about that...

Remember, I said "contemporary" Western civ. But while we're on the subject, it's indisputable without the preservation efforts of the medieval Christian Church through its monasteries, and the state Church of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire it's likely the ancient works of the Greeks and Romans would have been lost to us.

but for the sake of argument, I'll assume what you say is true. All that would mean is that Western civilization would look different. ...

It would unrecognizable. There's a reason why democracy and the idea of individual human rights only developed in societies where Christianity was the majority religion. More on that in a moment.

We mightn't have had the Dark Ages.

But the Church didn't cause the so-called "Dark Ages". It was the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West which brought about the Dark Ages. The Church saved Western Civilization by preserving the ancient works of the Classical period and by civilizing the barbarians who conquered the West. Besides, society didn't just come to a halt in this time period. Technological and intellctual advancement continued unabated.

We certainly wouldn't have had the Inquisition

No. But we wouldn't have had universities, the Rennaisance, the Enlightenment, et al. either. We wouldn't have modern jurisprudence (a product of Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Church laws) and, like I said before, the notion of individual rights would likely be foreign to us. The Christian idea of individual salvation and the "equality" of all in heaven, irrespective of earthly attainment of material goods, based soley on how the individual led his life, were absolutely essential building blocks for our modern conception of individual rights.

The Enlightenment thinkers may have rebelled against the Christian churches, but their ideas evolved out of the Christian ethos--they couldn't have existed without it.

or the Holocaust (at least not in the forms we had them).

German fascists perpetrated the Holocaust in the name of the racist, imperalist ideology of Nazism and Nazism alone. Hitler was raised Catholic, but he later disavowed his faith. I'll leave the debate about whether he was atheist to professional historians.

Keep in mind that before the Nazis took power in 1933 German Jews were the wealthiest, most successful and best integrated Jewish population in Europe. While we shouldn't dismiss Germany's or Europe's long history of anti-Semitism or ignore the fact that many Christians played a role in the slaughter, it should be understood that Hitler's genocidal anti-Semitism was his own.

Crusades? Never would have happened.

Yes, but the reality of the Crusades was far more complex. The Crusades were defensive wars. Remember, the Muslims were conquering and forcibly converting the most ancient and most revered Christian peoples to Islam. While this doesn't excuse the crimes of the Crusaders-like the sack of Constantinople in 1204-- it must be pointed out that the Muslims weren't exactly innocent victims. They had imperial ambitions of their own. They would threaten Europe for another 400 years, until they were finally stopped by the Hapsburgs and their Polish allies at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

While the Crusades ultimately failed in their goal of driving the Muslims out of the Holy Land, the Muslim advance was checked and as a result, Europe maintained its independence. In addition, ancient trade routes with the East were re-established and the monopoly which the Italian city states had over Oriental trade was broken. Marco Polo's legendary journey to China could not have taken place without the Crusades.

The idea that the Muslims were oppressed by the Crusades has its roots in early 20th Century Arab Nationalism. Until that time, middle eastern Muslims took great pride in their victory over the Crusaders.

Things might be worse if history had taken a different course, but they might be better.

Maybe, but I have my doubts. Just one man's opinion.

For some very interesting and highly entertaining speculation on an alternate Europe in which Christianity did not take hold, check out the Kushiel novels by Jacqueline Carey. Good stuff.

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

I appreciate your civility. Keep up the good work. Gotta go. It's way, way past my bedtime.

I respond:

Just a few things, because arguing about religion is about as useful and as painful as banging your head against a wall:

Just because religion is part of culture doesn't make it true. The human need for ritual and community and reasons for seemingly inexplicable things are obvious, but that doesn't make the supernatural claims those religions make true.

Jesus may have been a historical figure (though I don't think there's any concrete evidence, apart from the Bible, for his historicity) but that doesn't make the things that he said (or may have said) about himself, or that other people said (or may have said) about him, automatically true. I'm a real person -- when I die I will have been a real person. But that won't make my invisible transdimensional dragon real.

The skepticism I'm looking for in the press coverage is not the kind of stuff you pointed out: the debate there is whether the invisible transdimensional dragon is purple or whether it is pink. I want to see something that at least asks the question, Does the invisible transdimensional dragon even exist? I find it unlikely that none of these media outlets searched high and low and couldn't find one freethinker to talk on camera. They didn't bother to find someone because they didn't want to rock the boat. What passes for journalism these days is nothing but spineless cowardice enthralled to advertising.

Democracy developed where Christianity was the major religion? Again, I point you to those ancient pagans. Their ideas about democracy may not have been as inclusive as our is, but there's no reason to believe that memes other than those of Christianity couldn't have driven cultural development.

Subject: Hep me, Jeebus!
From: Robert Hubbard [RLHubbard@webtv.net]

Have enjoyed your writings since discovering the site roughly about a year ago...

Nice column on Jesus movies - one that also could be added to the 'trilogy' is JESUS CHRIST VAMPIRE HUNTER (yes, I'm serious), which does deal with Jesus in a surprisingly respectful way - once you get past the kung fu, lesbians, and vampires.

I respond:

*Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter*? I'm so there...

Subject: trying not to be cliche. . . .
From: reepicheep04@comcast.net

I'm sure this is an e-mail akin to many you'll receive in these coming weeks, that is, one saying that I was deeply offended by your review of The Passion of the Christ. So I shall try to be as original as possible in hopes of holding your attention to the end of this one small rant.

You claimed yourself in the later review to be an Atheist which is a respectable choice. However, you seem to be woefully misinformed as the nature of Christianity. Or rather of Christianity outside of strict Catholisism. I confess I fall into your "jesus-freak" category but you seem to have confused Christianity at large w/ Gibson's neo-conservative branch of Catholisism. It was an excellent review but there were two comments in particular that struck deeply. The first was when you said that loving parents shouldn't teach their children had to be nailed to a cross because the child is evil. Wow. . . in the nicest way possible: shit that's ignorant. Jesus certainly wasn't the first nor the last "rabble-rousing hippy" to die for his beliefs. And of course we see him as more than an activist. The integral part of Christianity is that Jesus is a piece of God here on Earth and that he died for us because he loves us, not because he had too. Nor is little Johnny "born full of evil," acc ording to the larger part of Christian denominations, he's born clean.

The most enraging comments in the diatribe occurred in the paragraph on Anti-Semitism. No, we (Christian, not Catholics) don't believe that we inherited Eve's guilt, and we don't blame Jews (a historical check may tell you that Anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe, has economic roots). However, the grossest point of misinformation was when you rhetorically asked whether or not Jesus' fans should thank his killers. That brings me back to the fact that he didn't have to die, while I'm sure he didn't really enjoy it, the whole point is that he voluntarily died for me . . .and maybe a few other people too

You gave Dogma a positive review and didn't need to slander Kevin Smith for being among the naive Jesus-freak. That movie alone should have taught you more than you're demonstrating. Jesus applies to Christians world-wide and not simply Mel Gibson's highly unusual sect, and we cannot all be characterized by his beliefs or your generalizations. It's so deeply offending to hear my chosen faith slandered by someone who is ultimately trying to be fashionable by being anti-Christian. I applaud your strength to lead an Atheistic life, I obviously couldn't do it, but now would I have the audacity to accuse you of being wrong. I'm sorry that you have hold bitterness against my religion, or religion in genereal, but please, be bitter for real reasons instead of vicious stereotypes. Just because I love my lord doesn't mean I'm intolerant of everything else. Profound thanks if you've actually read this far, and even moreso if this receives an actual response.

I respond:

these coming weeks, that is, one saying that I was deeply offended by your review of The Passion of the Christ. So

I'm deeply offended by *The Passion of the Christ.* Does that make us even?

You claimed yourself in the later review to be an Atheist which is a respectable choice.

I don't "claim" to be an atheist -- I *am* an atheist. And I'm not sure that it's a "choice." Did you "choose" not to believe in Thor? Or did you merely stick with the stories you were told as a child?

Jesus certainly wasn't the first nor the last "rabble-rousing hippy" to die for his beliefs.

Didn't say he was. But correct me if I'm wrong: he didn't die for his beliefs so much as he died for the supposed sins of humanity, including all the ones that hadn't yet been committed. How is it not telling a child "Look how awful you are, that this man had to suffer so much because of you" to raise them to think that Jesus suffered because of the bad things that child hasn't even done yet? I don't see how the voluntary status of Jesus' suffering has any bearing on the matter. It's all too bizarre for words, and I can't understand how anyone actually accepts this stuff as true.

denominations, he's born clean. The most enraging comments in the diatribe occurred in the paragraph on Anti-Semitism.

I didn't invent the charges of anti-Semitism against the film. I just discuss my disdain for the concept. Not sure why you have a problem with that.

No, we (Christian, not Catholics) don't believe that we inherited Eve's guilt,

But then why aren't we born into paradise? I didn't bite a forbidden apple -- did you? Why should I suffer for something done by someone (allegedly) born thousands of years ago? If that's not an inheritance of guilt, I don't know what is.

But we're arguing over fairy stories -- we might as well debate the length of Rapunzel's locks.

It's so deeply offending to hear my chosen faith slandered by someone who is ultimately trying to be fashionable by being anti-Christian.

It's fashionable to be anti-Christian? Since when? And I'm not anti-Christian -- I'm anti Christianity, anti all superstition. You seem to be suffering from the same misapprehension that affects many people: Being "tolerant" does not demand that I accept your beliefs as true, merely that I accept your right to believe them. Intolerance is banning your religion and forbidding it from being practiced, which is something I would never, ever call for. Naming all religion as mythology is not intolerance.

but now would I have the audacity to accuse you of being wrong.

But the very act of holding your faith, assuming that you genuinely believe, presupposes that I'm wrong. Is your faith not strong enough to imbue you with the audacity to accuse me of being wrong? If not, if you have doubts, then come join us on the skeptical side.

I'm sorry that you have hold bitterness against my religion, or religion in genereal,

Who said I was bitter? I'm just mystified that otherwise intelligent people could hold such bizarre beliefs.

but please, be bitter for real reasons instead of vicious stereotypes.

And what "real reasons" would be acceptable to you? That the entire shebang is one giant non sequiter isn't a good enough reason?

Subject: jumpin' jehova!
From: Benjamin, Jason [JBenjamin@christies.com]

I've been looking forward to your review of The Passion of Christ as eagerly as the Bible-thumpers were looking forward to Mel Gibson's celluloid gorefest. Thanks so much for your insight, clarity, humor, and sanity. It's easily the best review I've read, and the most decisive for me. I've debated whether 2 hours of graphic torture will provide anything cinematically--if not spiritually--worthwhile, but now my mind's made up. Juxtaposing "Passion" alongside "Temptation" and "Brian" was brilliantly done, and given the attention I had been looking for in major publications.

04.08.04

to batch #2 | to batch #4