The Moose Hole - Review of The Passion of the Christ

[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 ?