I could be all witty and sarcastic, but the question is just too simple.
Hell yes, Israel was right to take out Yassin. No question. For that matter, I don't know why they didn't take out Arafat when they had him pinned down. You can't sit back and hope and pray that your enemies will come peacefully to the bargaining table and give you peace. You go get them and hit them where they live. Israel doesn't want to fight terrorists in the streets of Tel Aviv any more than we do in New York City.
"Oh, you can't do that. That's against international law. We have the U.N. to settle difficulties. You can't assassinate people. You're mean. You're bad."
Yeah, it's really too bad. Israel and Palestine were really on the verge of settling all their difficulties. They were even going to open a jointly-owned Starbuck's and a KFC on the West Bank. Janet Jackson was going to perform at the opening ceremony. All they needed was a little time and some help from the United Nations.
I've said this before and I'm going to keep saying it: Islamic radical fundamentalists want us dead. They don't want money, they don't want tolerance, they don't want MTV or better cell phones or Marlboros. They want us DEAD.
It's sad that they feel that way, but that is their choice. That leaves us with the choice of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq or New York and Los Angeles. Sorry, but I choose to fight them on their own turf. The diplomats and terrorist-huggers may not like it, but taking the war to them has proved highly effective thus far.
I keep wishing the liberals would wake up and realize that appeasement doesn't work. It never has worked with any of our enemies and it never will. The only thing these people understand is strength and force. The U.N. can pass resolutions until it's blue in the face. That is meaningless to terrorists. You might as well pass a resolution and read it to your dog. Your dog would probably pay more attention to the subtleties and nuances in your voice than terrorists ever will.
Hans Blix is touring the world and promoting his book. The book is--gasp!--critical of the United States. He says the U.N. would have found a solution to the Iraq problem if it had been given more time. Time to do what? Wait for Saddam to die?
Jacques Chirac has said that only international cooperation will keep terrorism out of Europe. He called for an emergency meeting of European Union countries to discuss ways to deal with terrorism. The EU machine is so well oiled that it only took eight days to convene the "emergency" meeting. By the way, that's nice forethought, Europe. It's only been two and half years since 9/11 and you're just now ready to discuss the fact that Europe may be a terrorist target. Brilliant.
Just the other day, ABC's Peter Jennings said the Iraqis view their liberation "as something of a campaign of humiliation." Yeah, I can hear them chanting, Peter: "Bring back the rape rooms! Bring back the torture! We like poverty! We like starvation! U.S. go home!"
Where do the liberals get these wild notions? What are they smoking that makes them think that way? Have we not learned time and time and time again that weakness invites attack and strength backed up with action repels it? When are the liberals going to learn?
Enough rant. I'm going to go to bed, secure in the notion that the next terror attack will be in Baghdad, not Wichita. I hope I don't have a nightmare about President John Kerry raising my taxes to pay for reparations for al Qaeda.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Missed posts.
I have to apologize to everyone that posts and reads the topics. I have been very lax on posting new topics (thanks Mike for helping me out) and replying to those topics as well. My wife has been in the hospital (she was released this weekend) and even though some people would say "That's not a good excuse" my friends know that family comes first (right Terry) especially when it comes to my wife. So, on with the freakin' rants!
The Passion of Christ
I must say that I went into this movie with a totally open mind. Most of you know that it is pretty hard for a guy that was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Christian school for many years to not go into a religious movie either hating or loving it before buying his popcorn. I decided I was going to go into this movie not seeking a "religious experience" but to watch it from a psycological standpoint. I wanted to see what kind of effect it would have on the audience. I have seen the commercials (some people call it the evening news but it was really just a commercial to get everyone to go see it) that shows the people coming out of the theater looking like Tammy Faye Baker (-director "Running mascara looks great, now walk out of the theater and ACTION!") and giving interviews saying it was the greatest movie of all time. I wanted to go see if this effect was real or was just a handfull of people having a "divine moment" after seeing a religious movie. I want to start by telling everyone to get to the theater at least 30 minutes before you normally would. I don't mean 30 minutes before the movie starts but 30 minutes before you normally get there. We left at an OK amount of time before the movie started and the parking lot was packed (the HUGE revival tent in the parking lot didn't help but that's ok.) We got into the theater and the lobby was packed. We got into our theater and it was totally packed. The only seats that were available were a handfull in the center front row. Now for anything else (football game, hockey game, concert, etc) these would be prime seats but at the new theaters of today these are the worst seats there are. Normally this would be ok but for this movie it was a pretty big headache because, since the entire movie is in Aramaic and Latin, it is in subtitles and your head is swiveling back and forth trying to keep up with the dialog. But we coped because we didn't show up 30 minutes before we normally would have and had to take the seats we could find. The movie starts and I notice something. It is absolutely and totally quiet. I look around (since I am in the front row I just have to look over my shoulder and I can see everything) and people are staring at the screen. This went on throughout the entire movie (with a few exceptions, those being the scourging scene and a couple others) and I was amazed (much like Mike said) when the credits started. Normally when the credits start the theater staff starts turning up the light and they rush in to start cleaning, people get out of their chairs to stretch and chat about the movie and everyone starts to move out of the theater. The lights stayed dark throughout the entire credits until the actual film ran out and then the house lights started to come up. I looked around and not a single person had left the theater. Not one! Everyone was so shocked at seeing a portrayal of a scourging and a crucifiction that they were totally speachless. At this point people started filing out of the theater and you could still hear a mouse fart in there it was so quite. I friend from Shana's church went with us and she said when she went to the women's bathroom it was totally quite in there as well.
Now I hear the crazed hounds of war out there screaming "It was anti-semetic!" The only way I can see that this movie hurt anyone is if those thoughts were in the viewers mind to begin with. This movie did not make me want to go out and blame the Jews of killing Jesus. The only people I hear saying that it made them think of this are the Jews (feeling guilty are we?) Like someone said "Who lived in that area? The Romans and the Jews. Who killed Jesus? It must have been those damn Norwegians!" I don't blame the Jews or the Romans (hard to blame a race of people that are no longer around.) They had no choice in the matter. It was going to happen one way or the other. I do have to say, on this subject there was a critic that got it right when he said "This movie is like a spiritual Rorshacht test. You are going to see what you want to see and it will stengthen whatever your beliefs already are."
What is that? It's the hounds baying "It was just another gore-fest!" Well, yes it was. But I ask those same people if they have done any research on scourging and crucifiction and they usually (99.9% of the time) reply no. Well, I have and it aint no day at the park sweetheart! I had to explain this to my wife in the car after the movie. The Roman soldiers that had the job of torturing people weren't just crazy, they were perfectly crazy. They had very few laws that were punishable by death (for a Roman soldier stationed in Isreal) and one of them was torturing a prisoner to death. The Roman soldiers knew this so they got very good at what they did. They knew exactly how far they could push a man before he died. They knew exactly what they had to do to keep a man alive after being tortured. They knew what it took to not be the next person strapped to the block with a whip across he back. They were artists in pain that knew exactly what they were doing. They spent as many years learning and perfecting their profession as the average person would spend on theirs today (especially if you knew messing up at your job meant you would be put to death yourself.) A scourging is VERY bloody and VERY painfull. The fact that any human (Jesus was still human at this point) could still be awake and alive at this point amazes me to this day. But I digress. Fast forward to the actual crusifiction. There were very few points in this part of the movie that were "bloody" per say. When they put the first nail in there was a spurt of blood. That's about it. So the fact people are screaming that the movie is overly bloody is based on two "sections" of the movie, the scourging and the crusifiction. Waitaminute... So your telling me people are complaining about something (the scourging) being bloody that really was bloody in real life and something (the crusifiction) that wasn't all that bloody in the movie. Come off of it people! People are screaming that it will damage our children if they see this. Guess what! It's rated R, if your kids are watching it then you are a bad parent! It's as easy as that. Go home and tell me that they don't see blood sprays on regular TV (I've seen more blood spraying on ER than during the crusifiction.)
I'm not going to go on and on about this because I have a limited amount of time to spend on this topic tonight but I may touch on it later. I will post my thoughts on the other topic in the morning and expect a new topic in the morning as well. Good night all!
The Passion of Christ
I must say that I went into this movie with a totally open mind. Most of you know that it is pretty hard for a guy that was raised Roman Catholic and went to a Christian school for many years to not go into a religious movie either hating or loving it before buying his popcorn. I decided I was going to go into this movie not seeking a "religious experience" but to watch it from a psycological standpoint. I wanted to see what kind of effect it would have on the audience. I have seen the commercials (some people call it the evening news but it was really just a commercial to get everyone to go see it) that shows the people coming out of the theater looking like Tammy Faye Baker (-director "Running mascara looks great, now walk out of the theater and ACTION!") and giving interviews saying it was the greatest movie of all time. I wanted to go see if this effect was real or was just a handfull of people having a "divine moment" after seeing a religious movie. I want to start by telling everyone to get to the theater at least 30 minutes before you normally would. I don't mean 30 minutes before the movie starts but 30 minutes before you normally get there. We left at an OK amount of time before the movie started and the parking lot was packed (the HUGE revival tent in the parking lot didn't help but that's ok.) We got into the theater and the lobby was packed. We got into our theater and it was totally packed. The only seats that were available were a handfull in the center front row. Now for anything else (football game, hockey game, concert, etc) these would be prime seats but at the new theaters of today these are the worst seats there are. Normally this would be ok but for this movie it was a pretty big headache because, since the entire movie is in Aramaic and Latin, it is in subtitles and your head is swiveling back and forth trying to keep up with the dialog. But we coped because we didn't show up 30 minutes before we normally would have and had to take the seats we could find. The movie starts and I notice something. It is absolutely and totally quiet. I look around (since I am in the front row I just have to look over my shoulder and I can see everything) and people are staring at the screen. This went on throughout the entire movie (with a few exceptions, those being the scourging scene and a couple others) and I was amazed (much like Mike said) when the credits started. Normally when the credits start the theater staff starts turning up the light and they rush in to start cleaning, people get out of their chairs to stretch and chat about the movie and everyone starts to move out of the theater. The lights stayed dark throughout the entire credits until the actual film ran out and then the house lights started to come up. I looked around and not a single person had left the theater. Not one! Everyone was so shocked at seeing a portrayal of a scourging and a crucifiction that they were totally speachless. At this point people started filing out of the theater and you could still hear a mouse fart in there it was so quite. I friend from Shana's church went with us and she said when she went to the women's bathroom it was totally quite in there as well.
Now I hear the crazed hounds of war out there screaming "It was anti-semetic!" The only way I can see that this movie hurt anyone is if those thoughts were in the viewers mind to begin with. This movie did not make me want to go out and blame the Jews of killing Jesus. The only people I hear saying that it made them think of this are the Jews (feeling guilty are we?) Like someone said "Who lived in that area? The Romans and the Jews. Who killed Jesus? It must have been those damn Norwegians!" I don't blame the Jews or the Romans (hard to blame a race of people that are no longer around.) They had no choice in the matter. It was going to happen one way or the other. I do have to say, on this subject there was a critic that got it right when he said "This movie is like a spiritual Rorshacht test. You are going to see what you want to see and it will stengthen whatever your beliefs already are."
What is that? It's the hounds baying "It was just another gore-fest!" Well, yes it was. But I ask those same people if they have done any research on scourging and crucifiction and they usually (99.9% of the time) reply no. Well, I have and it aint no day at the park sweetheart! I had to explain this to my wife in the car after the movie. The Roman soldiers that had the job of torturing people weren't just crazy, they were perfectly crazy. They had very few laws that were punishable by death (for a Roman soldier stationed in Isreal) and one of them was torturing a prisoner to death. The Roman soldiers knew this so they got very good at what they did. They knew exactly how far they could push a man before he died. They knew exactly what they had to do to keep a man alive after being tortured. They knew what it took to not be the next person strapped to the block with a whip across he back. They were artists in pain that knew exactly what they were doing. They spent as many years learning and perfecting their profession as the average person would spend on theirs today (especially if you knew messing up at your job meant you would be put to death yourself.) A scourging is VERY bloody and VERY painfull. The fact that any human (Jesus was still human at this point) could still be awake and alive at this point amazes me to this day. But I digress. Fast forward to the actual crusifiction. There were very few points in this part of the movie that were "bloody" per say. When they put the first nail in there was a spurt of blood. That's about it. So the fact people are screaming that the movie is overly bloody is based on two "sections" of the movie, the scourging and the crusifiction. Waitaminute... So your telling me people are complaining about something (the scourging) being bloody that really was bloody in real life and something (the crusifiction) that wasn't all that bloody in the movie. Come off of it people! People are screaming that it will damage our children if they see this. Guess what! It's rated R, if your kids are watching it then you are a bad parent! It's as easy as that. Go home and tell me that they don't see blood sprays on regular TV (I've seen more blood spraying on ER than during the crusifiction.)
I'm not going to go on and on about this because I have a limited amount of time to spend on this topic tonight but I may touch on it later. I will post my thoughts on the other topic in the morning and expect a new topic in the morning as well. Good night all!
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
The War on Terror--2 1/2 Years Later
It is amazing to think how the war on terror has progressed since 9/11/01. The Taliban has been driven from power in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is a fugitive hiding in caves. Saddam has been driven from power and captured. Libya has voluntarily disarmed its weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda has been driven from several of its strongholds and has been 75% destroyed, if you believe President Bush.
Here at home, intelligence has been improved to the point where we can now cancel individual flights suspected of being terror targets. The Patriot Act, although we should keep an eye on it, has helped law enforcement efforts. The Homeland Security Department is coordinating security services on an unprecedented scale. Americans are even starting to cope with and accept the heightened security at airports.
All things considered, the war on terror has been a huge and costly failure. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. It has been unnecessary and wasteful. It has needlessly cost human lives. It has made the world a more dangerous place. It has stirred up new terrorist sentiment around the world. Clearly, the Bush administration has done too little to protect American lives. In fact, George W. Bush has placed the world in harm's way and gambled with the lives of our children.
Huh?
Ok, now, wait a sec. I'm confused. Maybe I've been watching too much CBS Evening News or reading too much New York Times. We drove the terrorists from their strongholds, smashed their organizations, brought down two terror-supporting regimes, beefed up our security, weathered a severe economic downturn, and convinced a terrorist nation to lay down its arms voluntarily. Yeah, that's failure. We should be ashamed of ourselves and we should definitely hate the man who stepped up to defend us.
Spain is right. Let's quit fighting the terrorists. Let's send al Qaeda a clear message that the next time they bomb something, we'll just give up. Let's start a program of love and understanding. Let's reach out to Islamic extremists and pledge our support. Let's give them a big, fat check for reparations with an apology for ever daring to oppose them. If we're nice to them, I'm sure they'll just love us and leave us alone in the future.
We've got some work to do at home too. First, we need to kick George Bush out of office. Europe doesn't like him, al Qaeda doesn't like him, the U.N. doesn't like him, North Korea doesn't like him, so he's gone. We need a president like John Kerry. We need someone who will vote to withhold supplies from the military. We need someone who will repeal the Patriot Act instead of using it to prosecute terrorists. We need a president who will turn over our foreign policy to the United Nations and put the world's interests ahead of our own. And man, we better hurry, because the terrorists are getting really pissed of at the United States. The sooner we throw down our defenses, the better.
Just like Spain did.
You know, I'd laugh at that kind of "thinking" if the stakes weren't so deadly serious. Within days of the bombing in Spain, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is still downplaying the threat of terrorism. He said, "Most people are much more directly threatened by such things as extreme poverty, hunger, disease, environmental disasters, or by low-tech violence, when order breaks down in their country or civil war breaks out."
In point of fact, you're probably right about that, Mr. Annan. There probably are a whole lot more people worried about where their next meal will come from or when their government will torture them next, rather than being worried about terrorism. But those people don't live in New York City and they don't live in Madrid. And your comment is completely beside the point. You can't be prosperous, well fed or healthy if you're dead.
In essence, what Annan was saying is that the U.N. can either fight the terrorists or they can perpetate the welfare state in Third World countries. Gee, which one do you think they'll chose?
I can almost understand the resistance to fighting terrorism in Europe. The "Old Europe" countries, led by France and Germany, used the end of the Cold War as an excuse to slash defense spending and return to socialism. Having failed to learn their lessons in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, these countries have built up huge welfare states at the expense of industry and productivity. They can no longer afford to maintain an effective military or activate security measures to protect themselves. They almost have to bow to Islam and beg for mercy. I feel sorry for that kind of helplessness, but they brought it on themselves. Unfortunately, Spain's capitulation will only embolden al Qaeda.
What I cannot understand, and what scares the hell out of me, is that American Democrats, led by John Kerry, appear to be buying into the old "blame America first" nonsense. Instead of blaming the terrorists for 9/11, they blame America's policies around the world. They keep repeating the mantra--the absolutely insane, demonstrably false mantra--that the world is less safe since we started rooting out the terrorists. Apparently, about half of Americans believe that! Are Americans really about to fold like a cheap tent the minute a bomb goes off? Are we really going to elect a president who wants to negotiate with terrorists and appease them? Seriously?
While we're mentioning Senator Kerry, let's look at who is supporting him around the world. Well, he has been endorsed by Kim Jong Il of North Korea. France is ready to elect Kerry as their president. Said the director of the French Center on the United States: "He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician....He is more like a leader would be in Europe."
Those are two very telling endorsements. If our enemies hate President Bush badly enough to endorse his opponent, then he must be doing something right. Who would you suppose Osama bin Laden will be endorsing?
The extreme elements of Islam want us dead. Period. They see our way of life as a threat to their religion. They see our freedoms as a corruption of their souls. They see us as their enemy in a life and death struggle to maintain their way of life. And that is exactly how we must view them. That's unfortunate, but it is inescapable. We can talk and reason and appease them until we're blue in the face. While we're talking and spreading a message of love and hope and tolerance, they will be plotting the next bombings.
The only thing our enemies understand is force. History has proven that to us time and time and time again. When we show resolve, our enemies back down or are defeated. When we show weakness or indifference, they attack us. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. The choice is ours. We get to make it November 2nd.
Here at home, intelligence has been improved to the point where we can now cancel individual flights suspected of being terror targets. The Patriot Act, although we should keep an eye on it, has helped law enforcement efforts. The Homeland Security Department is coordinating security services on an unprecedented scale. Americans are even starting to cope with and accept the heightened security at airports.
All things considered, the war on terror has been a huge and costly failure. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. It has been unnecessary and wasteful. It has needlessly cost human lives. It has made the world a more dangerous place. It has stirred up new terrorist sentiment around the world. Clearly, the Bush administration has done too little to protect American lives. In fact, George W. Bush has placed the world in harm's way and gambled with the lives of our children.
Huh?
Ok, now, wait a sec. I'm confused. Maybe I've been watching too much CBS Evening News or reading too much New York Times. We drove the terrorists from their strongholds, smashed their organizations, brought down two terror-supporting regimes, beefed up our security, weathered a severe economic downturn, and convinced a terrorist nation to lay down its arms voluntarily. Yeah, that's failure. We should be ashamed of ourselves and we should definitely hate the man who stepped up to defend us.
Spain is right. Let's quit fighting the terrorists. Let's send al Qaeda a clear message that the next time they bomb something, we'll just give up. Let's start a program of love and understanding. Let's reach out to Islamic extremists and pledge our support. Let's give them a big, fat check for reparations with an apology for ever daring to oppose them. If we're nice to them, I'm sure they'll just love us and leave us alone in the future.
We've got some work to do at home too. First, we need to kick George Bush out of office. Europe doesn't like him, al Qaeda doesn't like him, the U.N. doesn't like him, North Korea doesn't like him, so he's gone. We need a president like John Kerry. We need someone who will vote to withhold supplies from the military. We need someone who will repeal the Patriot Act instead of using it to prosecute terrorists. We need a president who will turn over our foreign policy to the United Nations and put the world's interests ahead of our own. And man, we better hurry, because the terrorists are getting really pissed of at the United States. The sooner we throw down our defenses, the better.
Just like Spain did.
You know, I'd laugh at that kind of "thinking" if the stakes weren't so deadly serious. Within days of the bombing in Spain, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is still downplaying the threat of terrorism. He said, "Most people are much more directly threatened by such things as extreme poverty, hunger, disease, environmental disasters, or by low-tech violence, when order breaks down in their country or civil war breaks out."
In point of fact, you're probably right about that, Mr. Annan. There probably are a whole lot more people worried about where their next meal will come from or when their government will torture them next, rather than being worried about terrorism. But those people don't live in New York City and they don't live in Madrid. And your comment is completely beside the point. You can't be prosperous, well fed or healthy if you're dead.
In essence, what Annan was saying is that the U.N. can either fight the terrorists or they can perpetate the welfare state in Third World countries. Gee, which one do you think they'll chose?
I can almost understand the resistance to fighting terrorism in Europe. The "Old Europe" countries, led by France and Germany, used the end of the Cold War as an excuse to slash defense spending and return to socialism. Having failed to learn their lessons in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, these countries have built up huge welfare states at the expense of industry and productivity. They can no longer afford to maintain an effective military or activate security measures to protect themselves. They almost have to bow to Islam and beg for mercy. I feel sorry for that kind of helplessness, but they brought it on themselves. Unfortunately, Spain's capitulation will only embolden al Qaeda.
What I cannot understand, and what scares the hell out of me, is that American Democrats, led by John Kerry, appear to be buying into the old "blame America first" nonsense. Instead of blaming the terrorists for 9/11, they blame America's policies around the world. They keep repeating the mantra--the absolutely insane, demonstrably false mantra--that the world is less safe since we started rooting out the terrorists. Apparently, about half of Americans believe that! Are Americans really about to fold like a cheap tent the minute a bomb goes off? Are we really going to elect a president who wants to negotiate with terrorists and appease them? Seriously?
While we're mentioning Senator Kerry, let's look at who is supporting him around the world. Well, he has been endorsed by Kim Jong Il of North Korea. France is ready to elect Kerry as their president. Said the director of the French Center on the United States: "He is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician....He is more like a leader would be in Europe."
Those are two very telling endorsements. If our enemies hate President Bush badly enough to endorse his opponent, then he must be doing something right. Who would you suppose Osama bin Laden will be endorsing?
The extreme elements of Islam want us dead. Period. They see our way of life as a threat to their religion. They see our freedoms as a corruption of their souls. They see us as their enemy in a life and death struggle to maintain their way of life. And that is exactly how we must view them. That's unfortunate, but it is inescapable. We can talk and reason and appease them until we're blue in the face. While we're talking and spreading a message of love and hope and tolerance, they will be plotting the next bombings.
The only thing our enemies understand is force. History has proven that to us time and time and time again. When we show resolve, our enemies back down or are defeated. When we show weakness or indifference, they attack us. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. The choice is ours. We get to make it November 2nd.
Friday, March 05, 2004
The Passion of The Christ
Jason, I'm hijacking your blog for a moment. Please excuse me. I just saw "The Passion of The Christ" and have a few things to say about it.
This movie has been analyzed to death. CNN ran real intuitive analysis the other day saying that the movie had been overanalyzed. No kidding. It was precisely because of the "controversy" that I wanted to see the movie for myself. I thought that would be a particularly wise thing to do in light of the fact that few "reviewers" or "critics" or "pundits" had actually seen the movie they were writing and speaking so passionately about.
What I Got From the Movie
I don't share the same faith that many of the viewers do, therefore I see the film in more logical, clinical terms than most people. Consequently, my opinions are my own and certainly won't be reflective of what everyone will feel.
I think the title of the movie is quite apt, but not in the way most people will. In my mind, the "passion" is not about Christ's passion or the passion he will arouse in any religious movement. Rather, I think the "passion" is about the level of compassion and feeling the movie will arouse in those who watch it. I defy anyone to watch with an open mind and not feel compassion toward a man who is mercilessly beaten, mocked, humiliated and ridiculed. I defy anyone to watch the movie and not feel passionate about injustice, persecution, torture, abuse, betrayal and lack of moral character.
If you strip away all the religious overtones of the movie, you will be left with a story about a man who was subjected to unbelievable hardship and came away unbroken and unbowed. In that completely secular context, this is an extremely well done film about human nature. Although you may not think so at first, it is also a quite uplifting film.
It occurred to me as I watched the movie that it must have a tremendous effect on people of faith. If nothing else, it takes a well-known, yet somewhat abstract story and puts it right up in the face of the viewer. Said another way, it's one thing to read the Bible and learn about the crucifixion of Christ from a book. It's a whole other feeling to see it unfold in front of you. This film must surely hit Christians squarely between the eyes.
I saw something today that I have never seen in any movie ever before. When the film was over and the credits started to roll, everyone in the theater sat absolutely still. There was no applause or chatter or sobbing. Everyone sat stock still for a good thirty seconds. Any movie that can garner that kind of reaction is ok in my book.
Lessons To Be Learned From the Movie
To really analyze this movie and get all of the many themes out of it, I'll have to see it again. This is one of those movies that you can see over and over again and come away with something new every time. However, let me throw out a few themes that stick in my mind.
Loyalty--Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter disavowed him. Both men were shamed by their actions and learned something about loyalty in the process.
Injustice--The mob mentality ruled Jesus' "trial." Precedents, laws and traditions were cast aside as it became clear that Jesus was "so obviously" guilty. Boy, that will give you something to think about in the context of today's "trials by media."
Persecution--I have been studying the persecution of Christians in today's society, so this theme leapt out at me in the movie. Christians were mocked, scorned, humiliated, and stripped of their rights, freedoms and dignities. That has always been the case throughout history, to one degree or another, but the persecution theme really rings in my ears in a modern-day context. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gratitude and Ingratitude--Compare Jesus' compassion and lack of prejudice toward Mary Magdalene to the way he was treated. She didn't forget it. Contrast that with Peter's failure to stand by Jesus in his hour of need.
Self Sacrifice--Simon of Cyrene was ordered to help carry the cross. His initial reaction? "It's none of my business. Don't bother me. I want to stay out of it." How many times have we let injustice go unpunished or let wrongs go unchecked for those very "reasons?"
Lack of Character--Pontius Pilate knew what was right. He knew Jesus was being persecuted and wronged. And yet, at the moment of truth, he waffled. He changed his position, he backed down, he compromised, he took the easy path, he tried to please both sides. Does that sound like some of the politicians we have today? You have to know what you stand for and you have to have the backbone to defend it. Pilate didn't and look how history has treated him. More importantly, look at the consequences.
Torture--As I saw Jesus chained and whipped, my first thought was of Cuba. Think about the places in this world where cruel and unusual punishments still prevail. Think of what happened in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq and many, many others. Think about the places where fear and torture are still in full force: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Sudan and the list goes on and on and on. The liberals love to make excuses for the brutality in those countries, but the fact remains that those countries are human rights violators. Seeing that kind of torture played out on a movie screen should make you appreciate the protections we enjoy in America.
I'm sure many more such themes will leap out at me when I see the movie again.
Are these things presented in a religious movie with religious overtones? Absolutely, but that doesn't make the message or the ideals bad or wrong. You can see the movie with a humanist point of view and still get the full good out of it. But you know what? "Many" people did not. Let's turn the spotlight on the people who disliked or hated the movie and see where they are coming from.
Why They Gave the Movie Two Thumbs Down
Boy, did the liberals ever hate this movie! Wow! I think most of them hate Christianity more than they hate President Bush. The liberal power structure really came together in orchestrated opposition to this film.
The liberals have been doing an excellent job of erasing Christian faith from the public eye. They have gotten prayer out of schools, God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, religion out of the Christmas holiday and the Ten Commandments out of the law. They have sneered and mocked Christians to the point where many of them avoid all references to faith and have gone "underground" and "into the closet" for fear they will offend someone with their beliefs. Take a conservative position these days and the liberals will almost invariably brand you as part of the "religious right."
The liberals had turned Christianity into a dirty word and had the Christians on the run. And then this movie stirred the whole thing up again. Dammit!
Anti-Semitism
In the two weeks before the movie opened, I must have seen a dozen rabbis on TV complaining about it. Every one of them expressed various levels of condemnation and concern because there was "a possibility" that it would spark anti-Semitic fervor. With one exception, none of these "experts" had yet seen the movie.
First, if you're going to critique the movie you have to SEE IT. Second, any number of things MIGHT spark anti-Semitism, but just because I don't like bagels, that doesn't mean I hate Jews. Third, the movie is what you make of it. If you expect to come away hating someone because of what their ancestors did to Christ, then you are already beyond help.
While we're on the subject of hate, let me say this: If you came out of that movie hating someone--the Jews, the Romans, anyone--then you're a fool. If you couldn't come away with positive themes and fuel for thought, then you either prejudged the movie or you're an idiot. There is no polite way to say it.
This is bound to offend someone, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Jewish community needs to lighten up. I realize Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history and treated unjustly. I realize that the Jews, perhaps more than any other people, have to be on their guard for signs of persecution. On the other hand, this knee jerk rush to the ramparts only serves to increase religious tension. If I hadn't seen a dozen rabbis warning me of impending hatred, I never would have dreamed the movie might have had the slightest anti-Semitic message (which it certainly does not). Everyone can relax now.
Hollywood
The Hollywood Machine worked overtime to trash this movie and Mel Gibson in particular. No less a person than billionaire David Geffen, the High Priest of Hollywood, came down from on high and made this statement about Mel Gibson:
"It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally, that's all I can do." Read: Mel Gibson will never work at Dreamworks and he'd better not work at your studio either.
Another unnamed studio chieftain said: "I think I can live without him." Hollywood sits up and takes notice of those kinds of proclamations.
John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor, down played the anti-Gibson attitude: "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Nice sentiment, John. That's a very telling remark and all too true.
I think Hollywood hates the movie for another reason too. Gibson put up his own money to produce and publicize the movie. He didn't have a fat $100 million budget. He didn't have to beg and scrape before the Lords of Hollywood to get it made. He did it on his own. And guess what? The movie that Gibson spent $25 million to bring to the screen has grossed more than $160 million and still counting. Gee, I guess there is a market for religious films after all. Who would have thought it?
The Critics and The Media
Recognizing that some reactions to the movie will vary widely, let me say again that if you hated this movie for its themes, you either prejudged it or you made yourself hate it. That is exactly what the critics did.
I have a large stack of movie reviews printed out and sitting beside me. Not a single one of them gives the movie a good review. Not one. With all the legions of movie critics in this country, you would think that one or two in the mainstream media would have something positive to say. Not so.
The reason the reviews were bad is simple: The reviewers were expected to hate the film. Hollywood expected it, the liberals expected it and their editors expected it. So instead of writing an honest review, the critics came up with reasons to hate it. The most common reasons for hating "The Passions of The Christ" were that it is too violent and anti-Semitic.
Now I don't want to prejudge anyone, but with two exceptions, each one of the negative reviews was written by someone with a Jewish surname. That's more than coincidence, that's collusion.
Even Senator John Kerry toed the company line: "I am concerned," the half-Jewish candidate told reporters. "I don't know if it's [anti-Semitism] there or not but there's a lot of it around now. I think we have to be careful." Nice waffle, Senator. That should be worth an extra million in contributions from the Hollywood elite.
The most ironic argument given by critics is that the movie is too violent. Let's talk about that for a minute. This isn't a case where the movie uses gratuitous violence. Each scene where Jesus was tortured or physically abused had a purpose. Each time he was beaten, the camera turned to one of the principal figures in the movie for a reaction. The Christians, Romans and Jews were ALL shown to be shocked, shamed, disgusted or outraged and the context for their feelings was given. Yes, there was a lot of violence, but it certainly wasn't a case where they put in an extra shooting or decapitation just because it has been ten minutes since the last violent act.
Contrast that with other movie reviews. No one said "Kill Bill" was too violent. No one said "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" was too graphic. No one protested the violence in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." And yet that darn Mel Gibson went and made a movie that was just over the top. Uh, huh.
Roger Friedman wrote that the film was "graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. There is blood, blood everywhere." Friedman goes on to say, "The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque." Gee, Roger, I think you got the point and missed it all at the same time.
Friedman's review was among the more bitter and hateful reviews I read. He actually bitched about having to buy his own ticket because Gibson wouldn't give him a free pass. Friedman walked in the door with a chip on his shoulder, but he wasn't alone in the press.
A Special Shout Out to Andy Rooney
The 134-year-old 60 Minutes commentator had an extra special criticism for Mel Gibson. Mocking Christians by pretending that God had spoken to him, Rooney (speaking as God) said, "Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? We all make mistakes."
Rooney went on Don Imus' radio show five days later. When Imus asked him if he had actually seen the movie, Rooney replied, "I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs."
Hit the showers, Andy. You're no longer a lovable curmudgeon. You're just a nasty, bitter, disrespectful, old man now. See ya. If a Christian news personality had spoken that way about any other religion, he'd be out the door in a split second.
Conclusion
What did Mel Gibson have to say about it all? First, he said, "For a year, it's been nothing but nasty editorials and name-calling." Then he went on to say that he would try to adopt a loving attitude "even for those who persecute you." Yeah, I can see why the liberal establishment hates this guy.
Don't take my word for what the movie is like. Go see it and make up your own minds. Just don't call me afterward and tell me you thought it was a violent, Jew-bashing movie. I've heard far too much of that already.
This movie has been analyzed to death. CNN ran real intuitive analysis the other day saying that the movie had been overanalyzed. No kidding. It was precisely because of the "controversy" that I wanted to see the movie for myself. I thought that would be a particularly wise thing to do in light of the fact that few "reviewers" or "critics" or "pundits" had actually seen the movie they were writing and speaking so passionately about.
What I Got From the Movie
I don't share the same faith that many of the viewers do, therefore I see the film in more logical, clinical terms than most people. Consequently, my opinions are my own and certainly won't be reflective of what everyone will feel.
I think the title of the movie is quite apt, but not in the way most people will. In my mind, the "passion" is not about Christ's passion or the passion he will arouse in any religious movement. Rather, I think the "passion" is about the level of compassion and feeling the movie will arouse in those who watch it. I defy anyone to watch with an open mind and not feel compassion toward a man who is mercilessly beaten, mocked, humiliated and ridiculed. I defy anyone to watch the movie and not feel passionate about injustice, persecution, torture, abuse, betrayal and lack of moral character.
If you strip away all the religious overtones of the movie, you will be left with a story about a man who was subjected to unbelievable hardship and came away unbroken and unbowed. In that completely secular context, this is an extremely well done film about human nature. Although you may not think so at first, it is also a quite uplifting film.
It occurred to me as I watched the movie that it must have a tremendous effect on people of faith. If nothing else, it takes a well-known, yet somewhat abstract story and puts it right up in the face of the viewer. Said another way, it's one thing to read the Bible and learn about the crucifixion of Christ from a book. It's a whole other feeling to see it unfold in front of you. This film must surely hit Christians squarely between the eyes.
I saw something today that I have never seen in any movie ever before. When the film was over and the credits started to roll, everyone in the theater sat absolutely still. There was no applause or chatter or sobbing. Everyone sat stock still for a good thirty seconds. Any movie that can garner that kind of reaction is ok in my book.
Lessons To Be Learned From the Movie
To really analyze this movie and get all of the many themes out of it, I'll have to see it again. This is one of those movies that you can see over and over again and come away with something new every time. However, let me throw out a few themes that stick in my mind.
Loyalty--Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter disavowed him. Both men were shamed by their actions and learned something about loyalty in the process.
Injustice--The mob mentality ruled Jesus' "trial." Precedents, laws and traditions were cast aside as it became clear that Jesus was "so obviously" guilty. Boy, that will give you something to think about in the context of today's "trials by media."
Persecution--I have been studying the persecution of Christians in today's society, so this theme leapt out at me in the movie. Christians were mocked, scorned, humiliated, and stripped of their rights, freedoms and dignities. That has always been the case throughout history, to one degree or another, but the persecution theme really rings in my ears in a modern-day context. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gratitude and Ingratitude--Compare Jesus' compassion and lack of prejudice toward Mary Magdalene to the way he was treated. She didn't forget it. Contrast that with Peter's failure to stand by Jesus in his hour of need.
Self Sacrifice--Simon of Cyrene was ordered to help carry the cross. His initial reaction? "It's none of my business. Don't bother me. I want to stay out of it." How many times have we let injustice go unpunished or let wrongs go unchecked for those very "reasons?"
Lack of Character--Pontius Pilate knew what was right. He knew Jesus was being persecuted and wronged. And yet, at the moment of truth, he waffled. He changed his position, he backed down, he compromised, he took the easy path, he tried to please both sides. Does that sound like some of the politicians we have today? You have to know what you stand for and you have to have the backbone to defend it. Pilate didn't and look how history has treated him. More importantly, look at the consequences.
Torture--As I saw Jesus chained and whipped, my first thought was of Cuba. Think about the places in this world where cruel and unusual punishments still prevail. Think of what happened in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq and many, many others. Think about the places where fear and torture are still in full force: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Sudan and the list goes on and on and on. The liberals love to make excuses for the brutality in those countries, but the fact remains that those countries are human rights violators. Seeing that kind of torture played out on a movie screen should make you appreciate the protections we enjoy in America.
I'm sure many more such themes will leap out at me when I see the movie again.
Are these things presented in a religious movie with religious overtones? Absolutely, but that doesn't make the message or the ideals bad or wrong. You can see the movie with a humanist point of view and still get the full good out of it. But you know what? "Many" people did not. Let's turn the spotlight on the people who disliked or hated the movie and see where they are coming from.
Why They Gave the Movie Two Thumbs Down
Boy, did the liberals ever hate this movie! Wow! I think most of them hate Christianity more than they hate President Bush. The liberal power structure really came together in orchestrated opposition to this film.
The liberals have been doing an excellent job of erasing Christian faith from the public eye. They have gotten prayer out of schools, God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, religion out of the Christmas holiday and the Ten Commandments out of the law. They have sneered and mocked Christians to the point where many of them avoid all references to faith and have gone "underground" and "into the closet" for fear they will offend someone with their beliefs. Take a conservative position these days and the liberals will almost invariably brand you as part of the "religious right."
The liberals had turned Christianity into a dirty word and had the Christians on the run. And then this movie stirred the whole thing up again. Dammit!
Anti-Semitism
In the two weeks before the movie opened, I must have seen a dozen rabbis on TV complaining about it. Every one of them expressed various levels of condemnation and concern because there was "a possibility" that it would spark anti-Semitic fervor. With one exception, none of these "experts" had yet seen the movie.
First, if you're going to critique the movie you have to SEE IT. Second, any number of things MIGHT spark anti-Semitism, but just because I don't like bagels, that doesn't mean I hate Jews. Third, the movie is what you make of it. If you expect to come away hating someone because of what their ancestors did to Christ, then you are already beyond help.
While we're on the subject of hate, let me say this: If you came out of that movie hating someone--the Jews, the Romans, anyone--then you're a fool. If you couldn't come away with positive themes and fuel for thought, then you either prejudged the movie or you're an idiot. There is no polite way to say it.
This is bound to offend someone, but I'm going to say it anyway. The Jewish community needs to lighten up. I realize Jewish people have been persecuted throughout history and treated unjustly. I realize that the Jews, perhaps more than any other people, have to be on their guard for signs of persecution. On the other hand, this knee jerk rush to the ramparts only serves to increase religious tension. If I hadn't seen a dozen rabbis warning me of impending hatred, I never would have dreamed the movie might have had the slightest anti-Semitic message (which it certainly does not). Everyone can relax now.
Hollywood
The Hollywood Machine worked overtime to trash this movie and Mel Gibson in particular. No less a person than billionaire David Geffen, the High Priest of Hollywood, came down from on high and made this statement about Mel Gibson:
"It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally, that's all I can do." Read: Mel Gibson will never work at Dreamworks and he'd better not work at your studio either.
Another unnamed studio chieftain said: "I think I can live without him." Hollywood sits up and takes notice of those kinds of proclamations.
John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor, down played the anti-Gibson attitude: "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Nice sentiment, John. That's a very telling remark and all too true.
I think Hollywood hates the movie for another reason too. Gibson put up his own money to produce and publicize the movie. He didn't have a fat $100 million budget. He didn't have to beg and scrape before the Lords of Hollywood to get it made. He did it on his own. And guess what? The movie that Gibson spent $25 million to bring to the screen has grossed more than $160 million and still counting. Gee, I guess there is a market for religious films after all. Who would have thought it?
The Critics and The Media
Recognizing that some reactions to the movie will vary widely, let me say again that if you hated this movie for its themes, you either prejudged it or you made yourself hate it. That is exactly what the critics did.
I have a large stack of movie reviews printed out and sitting beside me. Not a single one of them gives the movie a good review. Not one. With all the legions of movie critics in this country, you would think that one or two in the mainstream media would have something positive to say. Not so.
The reason the reviews were bad is simple: The reviewers were expected to hate the film. Hollywood expected it, the liberals expected it and their editors expected it. So instead of writing an honest review, the critics came up with reasons to hate it. The most common reasons for hating "The Passions of The Christ" were that it is too violent and anti-Semitic.
Now I don't want to prejudge anyone, but with two exceptions, each one of the negative reviews was written by someone with a Jewish surname. That's more than coincidence, that's collusion.
Even Senator John Kerry toed the company line: "I am concerned," the half-Jewish candidate told reporters. "I don't know if it's [anti-Semitism] there or not but there's a lot of it around now. I think we have to be careful." Nice waffle, Senator. That should be worth an extra million in contributions from the Hollywood elite.
The most ironic argument given by critics is that the movie is too violent. Let's talk about that for a minute. This isn't a case where the movie uses gratuitous violence. Each scene where Jesus was tortured or physically abused had a purpose. Each time he was beaten, the camera turned to one of the principal figures in the movie for a reaction. The Christians, Romans and Jews were ALL shown to be shocked, shamed, disgusted or outraged and the context for their feelings was given. Yes, there was a lot of violence, but it certainly wasn't a case where they put in an extra shooting or decapitation just because it has been ten minutes since the last violent act.
Contrast that with other movie reviews. No one said "Kill Bill" was too violent. No one said "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II" was too graphic. No one protested the violence in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." And yet that darn Mel Gibson went and made a movie that was just over the top. Uh, huh.
Roger Friedman wrote that the film was "graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. There is blood, blood everywhere." Friedman goes on to say, "The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque." Gee, Roger, I think you got the point and missed it all at the same time.
Friedman's review was among the more bitter and hateful reviews I read. He actually bitched about having to buy his own ticket because Gibson wouldn't give him a free pass. Friedman walked in the door with a chip on his shoulder, but he wasn't alone in the press.
A Special Shout Out to Andy Rooney
The 134-year-old 60 Minutes commentator had an extra special criticism for Mel Gibson. Mocking Christians by pretending that God had spoken to him, Rooney (speaking as God) said, "Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? We all make mistakes."
Rooney went on Don Imus' radio show five days later. When Imus asked him if he had actually seen the movie, Rooney replied, "I don't want to pay nine dollars for just a few laughs."
Hit the showers, Andy. You're no longer a lovable curmudgeon. You're just a nasty, bitter, disrespectful, old man now. See ya. If a Christian news personality had spoken that way about any other religion, he'd be out the door in a split second.
Conclusion
What did Mel Gibson have to say about it all? First, he said, "For a year, it's been nothing but nasty editorials and name-calling." Then he went on to say that he would try to adopt a loving attitude "even for those who persecute you." Yeah, I can see why the liberal establishment hates this guy.
Don't take my word for what the movie is like. Go see it and make up your own minds. Just don't call me afterward and tell me you thought it was a violent, Jew-bashing movie. I've heard far too much of that already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)