My wife's (Catholic) church was told to take children to see "The Passion"

[Pale Blue Dot]

Regardless about how you feel about Mel Gibson or his film, this is one of the stupidest and most irresponsible things I've heard in awhile. There is not any reason to take kids to see a movie that graphically violent. Even if you are a true believer, why expose a child to that? A child has the faith already, they don't need to be shown an extremely graphic crucifixion in order to get them to believe! Children need to believe in the best the human race has to offer, before they can deal with all the ugliness.

I'm sorry, but this really steamed me.

[KC21304]

1. You are right on. I am Catholic and I am not going to give

that Australian Taliban one penny. I know a lot of people are going to go and it is going to be a " life changing experience ". Well goody for them. If they take children they should be charged with child abuse.

[rwheeler31]

2. You are correct

It is disgusting to subject children to this. Be ready for nightmares

[One Taste]

3. My mom's catholic church is doing the same thing..

They see it as a huge evangelistic opportunity.

[burrowowl]

4. Supposedly it is X-rated

So I don't see how the kids can get in.
I remember the Legion of Decency Ratings to see what you could without going to confession.
Even some Bishop on TV said it wasn't for children to see.
So what gives in these parishes?

[Tinoire]

8. R for violence n/t

[ArkDem]

81. R rated

.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Violence is inherent - and essential - to the Jesus story

I applaud the Church for being willing to make sure the kids know the whole story, because without the suffering and violence of the crucifixion, what Jesus did has no meaning.

It's not to *celebrate* violence, but to let the kids - and the adults, and the rest of the world - know that Jesus really did truly indeed suffer.

(though I will say based on what I've read about the movie, the violence and suffering go on for a long, long time - excessively so - so I would definitely see it first before deciding whether to take kids to it)

Normally, I would say not to show kids violence - I think it's harmful. But some violence is true and important for them to know and understand: how animals are butchered, images of the destruction of war, photos of the death camps, AND the violence in the story of Jesus. They DON'T need to be seeing Texas Chainsasw Massacre, Rambo, or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. Why does a CHILD need to see THIS?

Do you have kids, Rabrrrr? I want my son to see "Schindler's List" someday, but not at eight years old. There is absolutely no good that can come from showing a child of that age such horrific violence before they have the context and life experience to make sense of it.

If kids DO see this movie, I feel it will backfire tremendously.

[DemLikr]

95. Good Lord, FinnFan, have you even seen this film yet?

If not, then your huffing about violence is based on hearsay...you could at least see the damn thing yourself before telling me how to respond to it.

Or am I making too much sense?

[Pale Blue Dot]

103. I DO plan to see it.

My notion of the violence of the film comes from the mouth of Mr. Gibson himself. And you misunderstand the point of my thread. I am not telling you or anyone else not to see this film - I a questioning the rational behind urging parents to take their young children to see it.

[DemLikr]

110. I have young children, therefore you're telling me how to respond.

How did you feel about Janet's breast?

[Pale Blue Dot]

112. I'm sorry. Ididn't realize my thread was titled

"DemLikr, don't take your kids to see "The Passion".

Are YOU taking your kids to see it? If so, what are their ages? Would you be willing to post their response to the film after they have seen it?

As for Janet's breast, I didn't like the violence in that, either.

[DemLikr]

128. They're 18, 15, 12 years old...BUT...

I would take them much younger, depending on how I felt about their individual ability to handle the intensity I would anticipate in this film.

I think you're forgetting about the violence kids encounter on TV, the internet, and in video games these days.

Most of all, the most important aspect of this is whether one has a relationship with one's kids that allows for open, meaningful discussion after seeing something like the Passion.

This whole controversey over The Passion is a mirror image to the Breast incident. Americans freak out over the weirdest things. People are being blown apart daily in Iraq, and fake violence in a film about Jesus is what gets headlines.

:eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

104. Several movie reviewers who HAVE seen it...

are all saying the violence is a hard R -- "Saving Private Ryan" violent. That is why they created a ratings system, so folks would know what is being portrayed in a film.

If you aren't ready to take your kid to see "Gangs of New York", then they have no business in this film.

[oldcoot]

12. Will the kids even understand it?

From what I have read, the actors in the movie do not speak English and the movie does not have subtitles. If the kids do not understand it, then what is the point of dragging them to the movie?

[Tinoire]

29. They know the story. There's nothing new in it.

Every Sunday, Church-going children see Christ on the cross. Every Sunday, Catholic children recite the Credo with the words "Crucified at the hands of Pontius Pilate, He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures". They also gaze, when they fidget, at the murals, stained glass and the artwork for the Stations of the Cross. If they've missed the story, they haven't been paying attention.

Also, before receiving communion, you're given a great awareness of what you're recieving. They're not taught that it's a piece of bread from a Happy Meal.

They'll understand the movie well enough. And it's the parents job to explain whatever they have questions about.

[burrowowl]

44. When I was in Catholic School

you could commit a mortal sin at 7 years of age. You were considered to have reached the age of reason. The Church changed the age of reason to 14. This is more in line with what we have learned of the brain's development.
If the kids are 14 or older, take them.
I have a good enough imagination that just reading the Gospels is enough.
I love the Passion of St. John. Jesus was very lonely in doing what He had to do. And, even when is talking about what He must undergo (the meaning of passion) He talks about Love or Charity being the greatest commandment.

[dmr]

49. Age of reason is still 7 years old

- snip -
it is presumed that until the age of reason, legally fixed at seven years, a child possesses neither the intelligence nor the experience to commit sin or to exercise any rights whatsoever.
- snip -
Catholic Encyclopedia

[burrowowl]

54. Moral age

boys 14, girls 12

[Mobius]

133. no there will be subtitles

Gibson relented on that

[chookie]

25. I don't agree

I appreciate your viewpoint, as I have been trying to get a sense of the message of the movie, and why it is being pushed as something essential to see.

I strongly disagree with you about " because without the suffering and violence of the crucifixion, what Jesus did has no meaning."

For me, it will always be the words and actions of Christ that are meaningful. I understand there is the idea of Jesus being a "blood sacrifice," but personally I find that quite primitive in nature.

We Catholics do the Stations of the Cross -- which is a personal meditation on the torture and death of Christ. My view is that the acknowledgement and gratitude towards Christ's willingly accepting this dreadful fate should take place deep in the silence of the human heart -- not on a movie screen, with gory special effects and 3-D sensaround sound. Gee -- my faith is not such that it needs some kind of blood bomb going off on screen to exist. I personally have very serious questions about why the heck this movie was made, at this time, and in this particular fashion.

Disagreement aside -- in the sympathetic reviews you have read, does anyone find a meaning being put across in the film, apart from supposedly awakening people to the details of his torture and death, and, as some have suggested, trying to find someone to point a finger at (although I understand Gibson has taken that scene out)?

Gee -- if it gets people so worked up about how horrific torture and persecution can be, and they leave the theater to become activists for Amnesty International, and demand our governments cease its support of regimes that do this sort of thing to people every day -- I guess that is a good thing. But just getting them hysterical and running pell-mell (or should that be pro-Mel?) into church -- where apparently a game plan is worked out to take people beyond the movie into drawing certain conclusions -- IMHO doesn't seem to make it any more valuable than The Exorcist.

Also -- if you can please direct me to some of these sympathetic reviews, I would be most grateful, because I do very much want to understand the point of view of the advocates of the film. Thanks

[Pale Blue Dot]

30. Great points, chookie

If you already live and breathe Christ's philosophy, as my son does (despite the fact that his father is a non-believer), then what possible good does it do to expose him to the circumstances surrounding His death? If you belive in the words that Jesus said, why do you need to see his crucifixion in such graphic detail? What other emotions could that possibly instill, other than hatred and revenge, if you already believe, like a child, in particular my child, does?

[ArkDem]

84. Oh, I dunno, forgiveness?

.

[aquart]

124. Jesus is tortured to death and the audience will feel.......forgiving?

Toward whom?

[Tinoire]

31. You might find this of interest. Not sympa reviews but Jewish/Christian

perspectives on the film. I really appreciated finding this recently.

http://www.mastermediaintl.org/guest/index.htm

I didn't book-mark the reviews but almost all of the ones I read were favorable.

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. No, I've not found "sympathetic" reviews

but in the non-hysterical reviews, there is still mention of excessively long segments of violence and humiliation. I have a feeling that I will find it too much, and perhaps detracting from the substance of the story. But then, Mel's from a severe form of Catholicism that's real big on the suffering and dying part.

You said, I strongly disagree with you about " because without the suffering and violence of the crucifixion, what Jesus did has no meaning."

and then followed it up with: For me, it will always be the words and actions of Christ that are meaningful. I understand there is the idea of Jesus being a "blood sacrifice," but personally I find that quite primitive in nature.

If one sees Jesus as a moral teacher only, offering wise words by which to live, then no, the words and actions ARE more important. But if one is Christian, believing that Jesus was fully human AND fully God, and that it is in Christ's death and resurrection that God reconciled creation to him/herself, then the suffering and violence DO become essential, because it is only through that experience - our God making herself a vulnerable, suffering human being and dying on the cross to show us how much he loves us - that the words and actions of Jesus find their true meaning, beyond being good moral code by which to live in harmony and peace with each other.

As I said, I would not bring a child to the movie without seeing it first. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone without seeing it first. And I also have a feeling that I will find the violence over-wrought and over-done. I don't have a lot of faith in Mel's ability to do a decent and fair interptetation - but one never knows.

But I do think that, if one is Christian and intends to raise one's children as Christians, one should certainly give those children the full and real story about Jesus' life, which includes his crucifixion. To shy away from the "violent" parts is extremely dishonest to the meaning of what happened that Friday and following Easter morning.

This is not to say that I dwell on the violent aspect of Jesus' story - I'm Protestant, so we have empty crosses, emphasizing the victory over death as opposed to the suffering Christ (though I do have one crucifix in my apartment :-) ). And it is the victory which is the truth of Christianity. But we have to know, and be honest and open to, from what that victory came, or it loses all meaning. And I find no reason at all NOT to tell that story to children. As I stated in my first post, I'm not keen on showing kids FAKE violence (horror movies, Rambo, etc.) but have no problem with them knowing stories of REAL violence (what happens in war, what happened to Jesus, whathappened on 9-11, etc.).

We need to make the distinction between violence that is simply gratuitous, and violence which is truly part of the story at hand, and shun the former, and not shy away from the latter.

But as with all things, check it out first. Parents will know their children far better than anyone else, and can make the best decision whether their children should see it.

[starroute]

46. Suffering is not essential to the story

http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html

"But in the earliest Christian writings we see a different understanding of the meaning of the Cross, one which, shockingly, didn’t think it was important for us to identify with Jesus’ suffering. For contemporary Christians it’s hard to imagine such a thing. The extremity of Jesus’ sacrifice has been the wellspring of Christian art and devotion for centuries. It has produced great treasures, from late Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion, to the meditations of Dame Julian of Norwich, to Bach’s glorious setting of 'O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded.' Mel Gibson’s 'Passion' arrives as the newest entrant in a very old tradition.

"A funny thing happens, however, if we press further back in time. Before the middle ages, depictions of the Crucifixion show very little blood. Though the event itself was no doubt horrific, artists preferred to render it with restraint (like the Gospels, but unlike Gibson). The visual elements in an ancient icon of the Crucifixion are arranged symmetrically, harmoniously, and the viewer is placed at a respectful distance. The depiction is not without drama: Mary and the disciple John, at the foot of the Cross, reel in grief. But Jesus does not reveal any sense of torment. He is serene, almost regal.

"What changed? In the 11th century, a theory emerged that shifted the common understanding of the Cross. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed that our sins constituted a debt to God which could not be simply erased without unbalancing justice. The debt was too immense for any human to pay, and only Jesus’ death could be an adequate sacrifice. Protestant Reformers, coming a few centuries later, modified some implications of the theory, but retained the core intact.

<snip>

"Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the atonement ("theory" would be too strong a word for a view expressed with a light, wondering touch, and without expectation of wholly satisfying human curiosity or logic) God in Christ effects a rescue mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell, and set the captives free."

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. No, it is - and you showed it in your post

"Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the atonement ("theory" would be too strong a word for a view expressed with a light, wondering touch, and without expectation of wholly satisfying human curiosity or logic) God in Christ effects a rescue mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell, and set the captives free."

Right there - Jesus died. Without Jesus dying, and dying in the most humiliating abnd miserable way possible, there would be no redemptive quality to God coming to earth in the form of a human being.

I agree we should not dwell on the suffering, and we don't need too mimic it. Our lives are lived freely, and without the burden of the guilt of sin, IN RESPONSE to the suffering. We must indeed go beyond the suffering, go beyond the death, and live lives as Easter people.

But to deny, or put away, or ignore, the suffering and the dying part leaves us with nothing.

Read my post 51 (above) for more.

[aquart]

119. For century, all children had to see was the pretty stuff

The Christ child in the manger, on his mother's lap. And presents. Easter bunnies and baskets of candy and eggs.

You wanna change that policy, it's okay by me. Shall I notify the church of Elvis to expect an influx of converts?

[eleny]

6. It's shit like this that makes me glad to be ex-catholic

What a nightmare maker!

[RebelOne]

131. It's shit like this that makes me glad to be an atheist.

[dawn]

137. It's stuff like this that makes me glad to be Buddhist!

:) I respect Christianity, but I'm glad to be out of this fray as a Western Buddhist. Sometimes I feel a bit isolated in my belief, but then again, no one argues about how my beliefs should be depicted on-screen. OK, except for the cheesy casting of Keanu Reeves as the Buddha in the Little Buddha.

But really, after being into Buddhism for a long time, I respect other religions more. I just wish people of all paths wouldn't try to force their beliefs on others (i.e. Mel hoping to evangelize via the violent imagery in the film) and just appreciate the goodness in all beliefs, as well as the wonderful things that are done every day by people with no beliefs at all.

[Az]

138. Still an atheist

Atheism is not a club. Its not an organization. Its not a religion. If you do not have a belief in god or gods you are an atheist. Buddhism in general is an atheistic belief system. There are some Buddhists that believe in gods but the belief system itself does not teach of gods.

[arewethereyet]

7. you apparantly don't understand the reason for Christ's passion

not the movie, the event. Any kid in religeous training should already know this. Young children would not have the background understanding for it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

9. They said on the news...

...here in Melbourne last night, that they were showing the trailor from the movie in churches right across the U.S. Is that true?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

105. Yes, they are...

there have been many reports on the news featuring that aspect of the film's release.

[Tinoire]

I'm taking my 12 year old niece to see it

She's had her first communion and is aware of the story. I don't believe it will shock her any more than the Stations of the Cross where we go over the suffering in detail. There's nothing in the movie that isn't in the book and because it's central to my, to her faith, I consider it important.

Christianity is all about the Passion- you can't sugar coat it. Also I don't see it as ugliness. I think it's one of the most beautiful stories ever written because, according to my faith, it's a story of love and how much God suffered when he came to earth to redeem us from Adam's sin.

Hope that explains it a little.

[CityZen-X]

14. You Are So Right!

No sugar coating on the assasination of the most important Being that ever stomped on this God given Earth! The truth is a bitch, then we die.

[LeahMira]

28. Not the same thing as talking about it...

I don't believe it will shock her any more than the Stations of the Cross where we go over the suffering in detail.

There's a definite difference between discussing something and seeing it. Why do you think we aren't seeing caskets coming back from Iraq? Surely we know that this is happening, but the administration is aware of the impact of visuals.

Of course you know your niece and are in a better position to evaluate how she might respond to this movie, but I'm nearly five times her age and I still cry in spite of myself whenever I see that photo from Vietnam of the little naked girl running and screaming.

In a way, I'm hoping that I don't change in that respect, even though it is a little embarrassing sometimes. I don't ever want to get to the point where I can look at even a photo of someone who is hurting and not respond. I think too many people have seen too much and have grown numb to human suffering.

[Tinoire]

35. I understand your point totally & I still cry my eyes out over that photo

The first time I cried over it I must have been 10 years old. My mother had a book called Hiroshima something or other (can't remember but I tried several times to find this book later on) and that picture of Kim Phuc was on the cover. It was a collection of letters from the people & children of Hiroshima about that dreadful day. I read it from cover to cover several times over the years. I also read and gazed, as a young child, the books with graphic photos, of the Holocaust. There were books of wars throughout the world but also all the happy books such as Marry Poppins & Nancy Drew. I don't think any of it traumatized me or made me numb to human suffering. If anything it gave me a greater appreciation of the monstrosity of the evil we are trying to stop. I do not think I would be as committed to justice if my parents had shielded me from those things.

Children have a greater capacity for understanding and empathy than we give them credit for. I think we just need to guide them along the way and know, depending on the child, and how it's been raised, when enough is enough.

I would not take a non-Christian child to see this film because then it would be meaningless and down-right cruel.

Anyway, I am sure I will cry when I see it. I cry sometimes when I think about it and am sorry that I don't think about it more often because if I did, I would be a lot less willing to tolerate all the injustice in this world and probably dedicate my entire life to fighting it.

We're all different. Thank you for expressing your point that clearly- it makes sense.

[aquart]

123. You can traumatize without being graphic anyway.

The Ed Sullivan Show once ran an anti-nuke CARTOON. I can't even remember it except for a kind of growing circly thing. My sister had nightmares of that cartoon for decades.

Children are pretty good at torture and ickiness themselves, in fact.

Don't they love things with worms and other yech?

You might worry if she walks toward her friends carrying a hammer and nails.

[chookie]

42. In between sugar coating and graphic depictions

I agree -- it is ridiculous to sugarcoat the Passion of Christ. It must be acknowledged.

You raise an interesting point, perhaps central to understanding the controversy -- that you don't see ugliness in it (the Passion), but that it is *the* story, of the triumph of Man through the actions of one man, Jesus.

We're rooting-tooting right on the same page there!

But why does the film -- or at least the trailers, obsess on the ugly details?

I still find it more comforting to explore this Mystery in the deepest silence of my heart. I may have great faith in Jesus -- but I don't have faith in Mel Gibson to interpret this overwhelming event of the human spirit.

[Beer Snob-50]

86. From what I have seen in Newsweek

this is unnecessary graphic violence. My faith could not grow any stronger by seeing the nails going into his feet and hands, or his eyes swollen shut by the violence against him. I think this part is only in the film to sell tickets (remember the exorcist, "hey they give out barf bags before the film, let's go see it!").

[veganwitch]

89. knowing about the passion vs. actually watching it on screen

from about age 9-14 i was a WW II nut, particularly about the holocaust. im not sure exactly why but i was. i read diary of anne frank, number the stars, devils arithmatic, my mom had a book of poetry and drawings by children in the camps, they took me to an art exhibit at the art museum in chicago. so yeah, i had a fairly good handle about the violence of the situation. also, during that time i hated to play hide and seek because it felt too much like the jews hiding from the nazis when they liquidated the ghettos.

so when shindler's list came out, my mom took me to see it. i lasted all about 30 minutes. when they started listening to the ceiling with the stethoscopes i told my mom i wanted to leave. i went to the car and cried. regardless of my knowledge of the situation, the movie was just too much.

take your niece but if she wants to leave, please honour her request.

[aquart]

120. Not our own sins? Adam's sin? Is that what it was?

The sin of disobedience? He died in agony for that? I thought the expulsion covered that transgression.

I wonder why he did it then? I mean, according to Usher, that was 5,000 years of avoidable suffering. 5,000 years of humans in every sort of agony, every kind of torture.

[chookie]

11. I think that is creepy

What I have seen looks like S&M porn -- like a snuff film.

I know that people see it as an evangelical opportunity, but reviews I have read by theologians express the opinion that it is deranged in its depiction of graphic violence, that it is perverse in the almost erotic depiction of the tortures of Christ. These same people say that it is also a bad movie, and that it really doesn't appear to offer anything beyond the graphic violence.

Does anyone know what redeeming value the film is supposed to have? Does it impart some transcendent values? Or is it just a shocker aimed at emotionally unbalanced people?

[Tinoire]

16. It's a film based on a biblical story central to many people's faith

no different than "The Ten Commandments" when you get right down to it and no gorier than Halloween or Texas Chain Straw Massacre.

I don't know which theologians express the opinion that it's deranged in its depiction of violence. I only read one New Age pastor express such an opinion.

Color me emotionally unbalanced but that I plan to see that movie. During Lent, on Good Friday especially, many Christians reflect very deeply on the suffering of Christ.

This thread had various interesting perspectives on it if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1064623

The testimony of 2 DUers who saw the film, one of whom was Jewish, should put some people's misconceptions to rest. It was certainly not one long snuff film. It was an accurate depiction of something central to many people's faith.

[chookie]

34. Thanks

No -- I am not a New Ager, nor do I go around quoting them. I really do mean mainstream theologians....

I am glad to hear that it is more than a snuff film -- because that is certainly how it is being marketed in the trailers. It is terrible to think that such a thing would be done. I truly do hope it has a transcendent message that will make people be better people, kinder, more compassionate, willing to stand up to the powerful to protect the weak.

As one raised as Catholic, I am aware of the significance of the death of Christ. It is something intensely powerful that we meditate on regularly. I was fortunate in that my meditations lead me to "walk the walk", and to see Christ in living people, in the suffering, and in those who comfort the suffering.

However, as one trained in history of religion, I look for patterns, and emphases made from the basic texts and practices. I was very struck by the emphasis on the suffering -- it is not always so.
I am attempting to find the reason why this has been strongly emphasized in this film.

As a student of film, I find it curious that the film utilizes the languages of Aramaic and Roman. Gibson had said something like "Uh, have you ever seen a religious movie made in English?" (audience laughs) I wonder if it is meant to cover up or innoculate against bad dialogue. As a student of languages, I am quite tickled -- maybe I should blindfold myself and just listen to the words.

I certainly do not mean to imply that you or any other Christian is emotionally imbalanced. But there is a type of person whose neuroses or psychoses draw on the iconography of religion -- that's specifically the sort of person I mean by "emotionally imbalanced." These people seem to go well beyond the centrality of the death of Christ as a matter of faith, and get stuck there in the details.... There are whole historical eras when whole communities get drawn into this mindset. I kind of suspect we are in one of those eras now -- hence my deep concerns about the film and what it is trying to provoke and promote.

Thank you for sharing your personal view, and for allaying some concerns.

I hope that the film does inspire people to lead better lives, and help put an end to horrors.

[Tinoire]

60. I took no offense Chookie!

Didn't think you were implying I, or anyone else, emotionally unbalanced and if you had, I would not have contradicted you (well unless you meant me ;) because there are plenty of unbalanced Christians running around but no more so than unbalanced Jews or Muslims or Atheists.

I think seeing the suffering in Celluloid will cause a lot of Christians to medidate more on the Passion, what it meant, and are we living up to our part of the bargain. That is my hope. I heard the film was a brilliant work of art and extremely powerful. Please read the DU thread I referenced because the DUer who saw it had nothing but praise for it. I think it was Sam Lowry.

I look forward to seeing what you have to see if you do go see the film. If you don't, I'll just look forward to your other posts :)

Peace

[aquart]

125. Hearing Aramaic spoken should be fabulous.

And if you're a student of it, WOW, what a thrill.

I just remembered that I know an ex-monk who knows Aramaic. I have got to ask him for a review.

[Walt Starr]

109. Much gorier than any film in history, actually

Forty-five minutes of the film is taken up by the scourging of Yeshua. Yes, for forty-five minutes you will sit and watch as the flesh is flayed from a man.

And that's just the beating parth. A Roman centurion will complain that a man is not nailing the hands correctly, and will pull the arm out of the socket to nail it down.

When a spear pierces the side, blood will flow all over him.

It's too violent for me, let alone any child.

[arewethereyet]

33. read up on Christianity

it will make more sense then.

Christ's death WAS graphic, WAS violent, WAS (in an way) perverse.

The fact that he accepted it all to take on the atonement of the sins of the world says something rather powerful about how He loves us all.

[diamond14]

13. our Catholic priest sermoned about the 'gunslinger' who came to

town...and it was not hard to know that he spoke of the shrub....

[Ilsa]

15. I have no intention of seeing this or anything else this violent.

Stuff like that seeps into my psyche and depresses me to no end and gives me nightmares. I suspect it's even worse for children. Taking a child to see The Passion (or any R rated show) is an act of abuse, IMO.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. But you are not the parent in this case

And it is up to each parent to assess how well their child will handle it.

[Ilsa]

37. I am the parent of my children, and they will not see it. Also,

I do not allow them to watch violent cartoons. We will avoid violence until we can't anymore. I don't want it incorporated into their growing minds.

[CityZen-X]

18. Oh The Truth...

shall set you free!

[Tinoire]

22. Is it any more abusive than taking a child through the Holocaust museum?

or letting a child witness the death & destruction that Hollywood os so proud to show in war & horror movies? Particularly in an age where American children are aware of Columbine, child kidnappings & murder, and the horrors of 9-11 to which they were subjected for days on end.

Children in the foreign countries we're attacking are exposed to seeing their dead, exploded siblings littered all over the place and children in the countries we've littered with mines watch their friends just go BOOM simply because they were playing outside.

Maybe American children can handle a wee bit more reality and a wee bit less fantasy. Just my opinion... Each parent does the best they can to protect their children. For some, there's also a concern for the child's eternal soul if you believe in that.

It's not as simple as it looks at first glance.

And yes it is depressing but in the end it's a story of Love. From start to finish it's a story of Love.

[Pale Blue Dot]

24. I am not taking my son through the Holocaust Museum

for the same reason. 12 might be more appropriate. 8 years old is not a time any child should be exposed to any of this in such graphic detail. The pastor did not make a distinction of ages. Thank God my wife (a devout Catholic), did not fall for this crap.

[LeahMira]

36. Some high school age aren't old enough.

I am not taking my son through the Holocaust Museum

As well you should not if he's 8 years old! For one thing, it takes about two hours to get through... more if there's a crowd... and that's too long for an 8 year old. For another thing, although the exhibits that are especially difficult are set off from the main pathway through the museum, a kid is going to ask where all those shoes came from (or some such question) and the answers are not easy to give to an eight year old. I probably wouldn't take anyone younger than high school age.

As for this film, I have to say that I find it strange that anyone has to see suffering in order to understand how much G-d loves them. If the beauty of the night sky or the warmth of the sun on your face or the dazzling colors of flowers in bloom isn't enough to prove that G-d loves you, I wonder if anything is enough.

[LeahMira]

93. That doesn't make it right.

Children in the foreign countries we're attacking are exposed to seeing their dead, exploded siblings littered all over the place and children in the countries we've littered with mines watch their friends just go BOOM simply because they were playing outside.

That doesn't make it right. Somehow, that argument reminds me of the "but Clinton..." stuff we hear so much. Just because children see these kinds of things somewhere in the world doesn't mean that it's just peachy that our kids see a film that is graphically violent. Sure, it's not as bad as seeing a brother or sister dying, but it still can't be good.

That's what I mean about being numb. It's the attitude that the world is a tough place, so you'd best get used to it kiddo.

I think our job, as parents especially but also as teachers, aunts and uncles, and neighbors, is to try to create a world where NO KID has to see the sort of horror you mentioned... not even in the movies.

[aquart]

127. And the effect on the children in those countries is............what?

Forgiveness?

Or are they so angry and full of rage they can barely breathe?

By all means, let's have our children feel that way.

[PragMantisT]

19. I've heard that from my twelve year old niece

I guess it's easier than getting them to read the book.

[revree]

20. This movie is endorsed by Vatican and Bush

Nothing but a bunch of right wing spin on the Christ story. How sickening. And I am an ordained minister disgusted with the evangelical conversion tactics of these people. All over our local news today, church leaders are saying they will take their congregations to see movie, then hand out flyers and doorknob cards to everyone in their neighborhoods to try and convert people, using this movie as a conversion tool.

So much for the truth of what really happened to Jesus.

[lolly]

32. Vatican endorsement?

Gibson was running around claiming a Vatican endorsement, but a spokesman for the Pope has refuted that, claiming there was no endorsement.

Anyway, do remember that Gibson is NOT Catholic. He belongs to a sect that has split off from the teachings of Catholicism.

[Tinoire]

62. You're mistaken about Gibson being a schismatic

It's covered in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1064623

Gibson is a member of good standing within the Church. They are not schismatics nor have they split from the teachings of the Church. They have liturgical differences but they recognize the Pope and are not excommunicated.

[chookie]

45. You have articulated one of my concerns

For me, being Christian is all about "walking the walk" -- emulating the life of Jesus, living his philosophy.

What we see in fundamentalism is highly emotional, harshly judgemental, and much of it seems so *angry* that it looks to me that they are not followers of Christ, but worshippers of the ancient war god Jehovah.

When I see people like *this* promoting this film, it raises red flags. I conclude from this that the film has an agenda of some kind, and that it promotes the agenda of people that I feel are quite dangerous and at best rather nasty.

As I posted above -- some how I do not think that it is intended to get people to act like Jesus, and be more compassionate, less material, more humble. I suspect it is meant to elicit a strong emotional response, to shock people to "believe" that their interpretation of the life of Christ is the only one, and that they then have to accept the social agenda of their church -- which seems to revolve more around using religion as yet another instrument to beat our fellow humans to pieces, rather than humbling ourselves and protecting the meek and the weak. The way propaganda works is by eliciting strong emotion, and then getting people to act in a specific way, without thinking. I am suspicious of what this interpretation wants us to take home with us.

[smirkymonkey]

106. Interpretation is the key word here...

and essentially, modern religion - whether it be Christianity, Judiaism, Islam or other - pretty much consist of the interpretation of the dominant forces in that religion.

It seems to me that what Jesus preached has given way to a more Paulist version of events that were no doubt in line with a political agenda that has been tweaked over the ages to suit those in power at any given time in the history of Christianity.

Is there any sex in the film? I am sure it's fine for kids to see all that brutal violence in the name of faith, but heaven forbid they see people having sex!

[George_Bonanza]

21. I really want to see the film, but...

It is getting quite annoying how all these churches are treating this like their own personal promotion tool. I think it will backfire because people will start feeling like they are supporting evangelical extremists by simply watching this movie. I want to see the film to judge for myself exactly how anti-Semitic it is, and it seems like a very ambitious film of the likes we have never seen before (for one thing, no English with a British-accented Jesus, although the actor is still a white guy).

[Djinn]

27. BINGO George_Bonanza

A white man as Jesus - yep sure sounds "realistic" to me

[Philosophy]

23. Hey, they already worship a torture device

Might as well learn the correct way to use it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Children who are not f***ed up are no good for churches

You know, rational thinking, strong will, lack of convenient pavlovian buttons to push... useless.

[bleedingheart]

38. The movie has been ruined for me because I already know the ending

;-)

[Pale Blue Dot]

41. LOL

:spank:

[Dob Bole]

39. Christian Theology:

It is because of the worst the human race has to offer, inflicted on Christ, that we experience the best. I'll not pass judgement on the movie until I see it.

But yeah, it doesn't exactly seem to be a kid's movie.

[jsw_81]

40. I don't understand these people

They attack "secular" culture for silly things like showing Janet Jackson's nipple for half a second on TV, but five minutes later they say that we should all take our kids to a violent movie that shows an innocent young man being brutally tortured and murdered in some sort of bizarre blood sacrifice ritual to appease an angry deity. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. You are right

You DON'T understand these people or their religion.

[Djinn]

66. how about explaining then muddle

at what point should you shield your kids from violence? if I'm getting your point correctly it's OK to expose kids to violence if it's religious? is that ALL religions? or just christianity?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. It depends on the child

But children who were raised to understand the story of Jesus should be able to handle seeing a graphic representation of it because they are quite familiar.

Instead of being a horrifying movie, it could offer a teaching moment.

[Djinn]

97. you missed the main part of the question

is it OK for people of ANY religion, not just Christianity, to expose their kids to violence or depictions of violence in the name of religion, or is it barbarous when "they" do it?

[aquart]

126. Oh, I'm so glad you said that.

Of course, that was the whole point. Christ was the last. After him, the cycle was broken. No more young men sacrificed yearly, or every 8 years or whatever the other numbers were. This was the last sacrifice.

Well, there's some stuff in Peru we're not too sure about, but basically, Christ was and is the official scapegoat for all eternity. The last offering of blood.

[chookie]

47. Perhaps a clue to the political agenda of this film?

How come the right wing and the fundies are promoting *this* film so strongly, when some years ago they violently objected to "The Last Temptation of Christ?"

That I did see. I couldn't see what people were all worked up about, because there was absolutely nothing disrespectful about the film. It was based on a novel by Kazanzakis, who was a passionate follower of Christ, as a tribute to His courage and sacrifice.

I remember my mother being outraged, saying that anyone who had anything to do with it should be shot. I explained to her the controversial scene in context. The "Last Temptation" refers to the Devil telling Jesus, as he hangs from the cross -- hey man -- great job! I can't believe you went ahead with it! Whatta guy! What INCREDIBLE faith you have!! You've DONE it! Wow! Now get down from there!"

We see Jesus off the cross, returning to his family, his wounds treated and being comforted after his horrific ordeal. He makes love to Mary Magdalene, a woman he felt guilty for not having been able to marry, which lead to her public disgrace. We see them radiant with happiness as they become parents, and make his mom a grandmother. We see Jesus as an old man, surrounded by grandchildren, seated on his porch, passing on the skills of his trade of carpentry.

I said to my Mom -- who wouldn't have WISHED that it would have turned out like that for Jesus? I had her in tears.

I went on to say that Jesus realizes that he is being tempted not to go through with it -- and -- after seeing ALL THAT, he willingly fulfills the sacrifice. Now, that sequence had me crying -- it was so moving....

Gee -- what is so terrible about this telling of the story that the same folk who are promoting Mel's flick comdemned it so vehemently?

Was it that fundies can't handle anything outside the Book -- except the sometimes bizarre interpretations of their congregations -- and absolutely couldn't even handle the idea of Christ having a beautiful sexual act of love in a loving marriage even for a microsecond?

Or is it that the film's overall tone is politically liberal -- even though it is extremely devotional to Jesus? Makes me wonder....

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Agendas

The Last Temptation was a WILD reinterpretation of the story of Jesus and was opposed as such.

There was TONS disrespectful about that film. Jesus did NOT live the life portrayed in that fantasy and to conjure it up and show it on film was disgusting. To claim that was so is a direct offense to those who believe otherwise. Had it been done about Mohammed, someone would have called for the death of all those involved -- and probably gotten it. As it is, it simply went away.

[chookie]

52. Yes, it was based on a novel

But no less devotional for that.

It was a "humanistic" interpretation. Humanistic bad. Literal good.

Um -- ever hear of a guy named Salman Rushdie? He wrote a humanistic novel about Mohammed, and was made the target of jihad. You're right there. People were decrying The Last Temptation in this same manner. I guess I believe their reaction has a very similar motivation, although the faiths are so different.

BTW -- the stuff that appears in Mr Gibson's movie is no more in the Bible that Kazanzaki's reading was. The Bible states -- he was crucified. It is interesting that some are offended by Kanzasaki's acknowledgely fictional account, but are hunky dory with Mel's attempts to imagine the Passion in vivid detail, which simply does not appear in the Bible.

Wow -- you have expressed a very powerful emotional reaction in condemning The Last Temptation, although you did not articulate why, and perhaps you don't wish to, but why Mel's view is right, and Scorsese's -- who is a very pious traditional Roman Catholic who, like Gibson, sought to pay tribute to Christ-- is wrong -- is not all together clear by what you have written here.

By the way -- overall I didn't like Last Temptation, simply because I did not think it was a good movie, and because it contained poor performances. I personally saw these as artistic flaws, not theological ones.

[Tinoire]

64. There's a difference

Last Temptation was pure artistic fantasy based Kazantzakis' vision of how Christ was tempted.

Passion is a literal rendering of the facts one after another as listed in the Gospels. Gibson didn't take any liberties with the film- he stuck to the established script which is why any attack on the accuracy of the story in the film (provided he stuck to the Gospels which all Christians who saw it say he did) is an attack upon the Gospels.

People need to be very clear when discussing this film on whether they're attacking the accuracy of the film or the veracity of the Gospels.

[smirkymonkey]

111. Did the Gospels really illustrate every

gory detail of Christ's crucifixion??

[Djinn]

67. offensive?

why? your "knowledge" of jesus is simply belief - why can't someone else have a different belief without it being offensive, as it is anyone who beleives that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins is directly contradicting the religious beliefs of the majority of the world's population, so why is it not offensive any time a christian preacher talks about Christ as god's son?????

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. Belief

OK, my next movie is about the prophet Mohammed as a pig herder. After all, that's not offensive or anything, it's just a belief.

(For the record, I would never do that because Muslims would and SHOULD find it offensive.)

When you deliberately seek to shock and offend, you should not be surprised when you succeed.

[Djinn]

98. In that case CHRISTIANITY itself is offensive

to Muslims and Jews - if you actually read the teachings that is, and vice versa, Islam, if you beleive in Christ, is in of itself offensive because they do not beleive Christ was the son of god (along with jews) and they don't beleive he died on the cross (don't know the jewish take on that) So if I say "jesus was not the son of god and did not die for our sins on the cross" that is offensive right? in which case both the other monotheistic religions should be offensive to you.

NB: this isn't an anti-christian or anti-jewish or anti-muslim thing, just facts when you look at the Torah, Bible and Quran

[LeahMira]

94. Good point!

why? your "knowledge" of jesus is simply belief - why can't someone else have a different belief without it being offensive


You make an interesting point.

Mel Gibson claims to be following what is reported in the gospels. If that's what he did, then while I may say that the gospels are not factual accounts of the events, at least his film is nothing more than a visual repetition of the same story.

The belief thing raises a whole other issue. People and religions have overlaid the gospel account with all sorts of meanings. When people see this film, they bring to it all those understandings and interpretations. Not everyone will see the same film because not everyone comes to it with the same beliefs, and since they are beliefs, no one set of understandings is really any more valid than another.

Just as an example, were I to see this film (which I don't intend to) I might come away with the understanding that it is just one more situation where a Jewish person was murdered for no reason. I have read the Christian gospels, and just on the face of it Jesus wasn't doing anything that threatened the Romans, he didn't have anything they wanted or needed, and his crucifixion was a senseless murder... just as Jews were murdered during the Holocaust although they weren't doing anything that was a threat to the Germans and they didn't have any land or great wealth or anything that the Germans wanted or needed, so they also were senselessly murdered. One more example of the way gentiles target Jews. It's been going on for centuries. So what else is new.

That "version" rests on the fact that I would see the film in light of my own personal and Jewish beliefs and point of view.

Now, the question becomes... what will Christians take away from this film? It won't be the same impression that I would probably take from it, but what will they take from it? If somehow they are inspired to be better people, maybe more loving towards all people because some of them believe that Jesus died for all people, that might be a good outcome. OTOH, if they come away with the idea that because they have "accepted the sacrifice of Jesus" they are better than someone who hasn't "accepted" it, then that might be a not so good outcome.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, eh? And be prepared.

[LeahMira]

90. Not disrespectful at all...

There was TONS disrespectful about that film. Jesus did NOT live the life portrayed in that fantasy and to conjure it up and show it on film was disgusting. To claim that was so is a direct offense to those who believe otherwise. Had it been done about Mohammed, someone would have called for the death of all those involved -- and probably gotten it. As it is, it simply went away.

Sorry, but there wasn't anything disrespectful about the film... unless you imagine Jesus as someone who never, even had any sort of sexual feelings and was never, ever tempted in that direction.

The film was not intended to follow the gospels. It was a "what if" sort of film, and a statement at the very beginning said quite clearly that it was just that.

Don't you ever wonder what Sarah thought or did when she saw Abraham getting ready to go out and offer her son Isaac as a blood sacrifice? Don't you ever wonder how Rachel felt when Jacob married her older sister instead of her? That maybe she worried he would eventually come to love Leah and forget about her? Don't you ever wonder if Noah felt sad when he saw all his neighbors drowning? That maybe he really wished he could save some of them? None of these things are recorded in the Bible, but if those people actually existed and we are supposed to relate to them somehow, don't you think it helps to remember that they probably had the same kinds of feelings that we would have in the same situations? In the end, they did what they were supposed to do, but surely they had doubts just as any of us would have.

[Tinoire]

63. Your mistake Chookie, lol

You read the book! People who read the books always get into trouble ;)

I read Nikos Kazantzakis' book and loved it. Loved it so much I couldn't bear to see the movie (I eventually tried once but I got bored I think) but you picked up on the secret of the beauty of the story.

I was out of the country at the time so I didn't experience the fuss in the US. Did most people who saw the movie to the end pick up on that? I mean was it clear? I know it was in the book but never knew how they did it in the movie and have always been curious.

[Rabrrrrrr]

135. I'm with you about Last Temptation

I didn't understand the brouhaha, and was offended by the number of people who were up in arms about it, picketing the theaters, writing letters to the deitor, and yet, THEY HADN'T SEEN IT.

I think it's a WONDERFUL movie!

And I also thought it was quite obvious - I mean, plainly, obviously evident - that the whole bit with a married Jesus was pretend. That that's what his final temptation was, and ultimately he didn't go for it.

I thought it was a beautiful meditation on Jesus' humanity, and his mission.

[starroute]

50. And what if it is taken as an endorsement of cruelty and violence?

There's a problem built into the Christ story -- or at least the modern, Western version of it. That is that the inescapable theological conclusion is that it all happened solely because God wanted it to happen -- that God was so almighty pissed at the human race over original sin that only unendurable suffering on the part of a totally innocent victim would persuade him to let (some of) them off the hook.

That isn't an image of God that I would ever endorse -- and it isn't even essential to Christianity. I posted a link above to an article which describes how the Eastern Orthodox attitude is completely different, and it's worth posting again here: http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html

But what concerns me most in the context of current politics is that such an image of God leads to the conclusion that it's also okay for *people* to be angry, vindictive, sadistic, and appeased only by the suffering of the innocent. Almost everything in the history of Christianity that has been singled out as utterly inexcusable -- the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition -- was justified at the time by the notion that it's fine for the innocent to suffer as long as it serves a higher purpose.

I'm very much afraid that this Mel Gibson movie will serve to reinforce that notion. That thousands of people will leave the theaters convinced that it's acceptable for little Iraqi kids to get their arms blown off because that's the way God does these things. And that thousands more will leave feeling that compared to the suffering of Christ, the suffering of any mere human is trivial and of no value or importance.

I'm afraid that American society will become more violent, more self-favoring, and more indifferent to genuine suffering because of this movie. Its very realism is calculated to make people accept it as the Truth and not doubt what they have been shown. The fact that churches are endorsing it further increases its effectiveness as propaganda, because people will turn off their minds and not react to it criticially. Whatever angry, vindictive, sadistic feelings they take away from it will stay with them and be turned outward against whoever has the misfortune to cross their path.

If the movie used its violence, as Greek tragedy does, to lead to a cathartic experience of pity and terror, that would be worthwhile. But nothing I have heard about it indicates to me that it does, and violence without catharsis is the most dangerous thing I know.

[chookie]

55. Thanks for your thoughtfulness

You articulated your view most thoughtfully and eloquently.

I have been trying to say the same thing, although I expressed myself crudely and ineffectively.

Yes -- people, that is, believers, tend to think of their religion as some monolithic, unchanging entity, when in fact they are evolving all the time. Some aspects are played up at one time, and others muted. Interpretations of Eternal Truth vary tremendously. Much of this can be understood within the context of history of the eras in which they appear.

Ah -- but that is "humanism." Humanism bad.

Those of us who follow these things with the knowledge of historical trends are seriously wondering, why *this* film *now*?

[Rabrrrrrr]

57. And your question is a legitimate one

why *this* film *now*?

I don't think it's at conspiracy level, but it is somewhat suspicious. Certainly Gibson had to wait until he had a lot of clout of money, etc., in order to do it. And we needed to wait for his conversion into the radical form of Catholicism he got himself into.

And I would be surprised if his movie isn't tinged, or possibly even lathered, with right-thinking unhelpfulness.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. Ah, I'm seeing now where you're missing the point

You think God required Jesus to die as a sacrifice born out of God's anger at humanity.

You can have taht belief, but you are fairly far off from orthodoxy (and Orthodoxy).

Jesus WAS God - the passion, the humiliation, the violence, the death, were all being done TO God. It was God's example of her love for us that he was willing to go through all that, experience what we humans experience, and then be killed. And then rise in triumph on Easter morning, having defeated death, to say to humanity, "There - don't sin, but don't kill yourself if you do. YOU are forgiven. Go, love one another, as I have loved you."

It was not a sacrifice of the innocent victim to be final "required" sacrifice in order to appease God's anger. That would be, as black-feminist-liberation theologican Delores Williams read the story, child abuse.

[chookie]

58. I don't think it's what starroute thinks, necessarily

I believe Starroute's remarks ("God required Jesus to die as a sacrifice born out of God's anger at humanity) were meant to apply to Gibson's "read" of the Passion, and perhaps the RW "read" as well.

I think neither Starroute or myself would argue with your celebration of orthodoxy, so succinctly expressed -- what we are both examining here is Gibson's, who is really hung up on the "blood sacrifice" thing. Gee, where is he taking us with that?

[Rabrrrrrr]

61. Thanks for the clarifier - you made go back and re-read it,

and I realize when i read I missed some words in Starroute's post. Turned out those words we were rather important. :-)

Thanks for the kicker!

[thinkingwoman]

72. but see, that's the problem

I cannot believe jesus was god. To me that is the most repulsive thing imaginable. My concept of god cannot and will never coincide with the limitations of being human on earth.

And on the practical side...if jesus was god, who in the hell was he talking to and about when he said father?

Sorry, but christians who believe jesus was god have that right, but they need to remember that theirs is not the only path.

[Rabrrrrrr]

83. I'm not going to disagree with you on your own path

But will point out that the long tradition of the church has always maintained that Jesus was fully human, and fully God.

You odn't have to agree with that, but you are well out of (small-o)orthdoxy if you don't.

I find great comfort in believing that my God, the creator of all, loved us enough to come to earth and share in our common lot, to understand *our* suffering by suffering him/herself, and offering him/herself to us to crucify. And from that violence, bring redemption.

One would hope that would have been enough to stop people from killing and exacting violence upon each other, but alas, we are all too human.

[thinkingwoman]

101. yes but you didn't address the central question

who was jesus talking to when he said father? himself? an alternate personality?

I know that may sound flippant but I truly do not mean to be. I am seriously asking.

The belief that jesus and god were the same being simply does not correspond with scripture.

[Rabrrrrrr]

107. It is the duality of Jesus' being

Fully human/fully God, but Jesus, as Son, is but a part of the Trinity, along with father and the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps it was the cry of human suffering, from the human side of Jesus' existence - a cry not at all unlike many of my patients in the hospital: "Why has God abandoned me?"

And I think you will find that Scripture very much does give the idea that Jesus was God, and the long tradition of the church supports that interpretation, BASED on Scripture. Not all traditions - the gnostics certainly didn't believe it - and of course we then have the issue of "but what if the tradition church was just the loudest/most powerful, but wrong?" which is always a possibility. So, I go back to Scripture, and I find it quite clear that Jesus was God, while at the same time also fully human.

[thinkingwoman]

136. which scripture?

exactly what versus explain his wording at the end? I am truly interested in understanding your belief, but I'll be honest in my belief that trinity and duality are just additional words for multiple gods. In my book that means paganism rather than monotheism.

Still, I do want to know what scripture to read that explains the two places at one time, two entities but one. I've read both the new and old testaments many times in many versions and I still don't see it.

[LizW]

59. Evangelical churches around here are going to see the movie in droves

and many are taking their children.

I've only seen the trailer for the film, and I'll say that I found the level of violence pretty high, and that was only shown for a few seconds. I understand the actual sequence of the "scourging" and crucifiction is lengthy.

It just seems that common sense would dictate that parents of children younger than 17 should see this movie first and then decide based on what they know about their own children if the kids should see it or not.

Just because a film depicts meaningful, important events that we want our children to know about and understand doesn't mean that they are ready to see them played out on the big screen in graphic detail. I want my children to see Schindlers' List, but not yet.

[corporatewhore]

65. If your into "the passion" i would say wait until kid is mature enough to

see and understand it i dont know how old your kid is but i rember sneaking when i was a little kid on my cousin and her boyfriend who were watching a gory film and had nightmares

[nolabels]

70. Mel Gibson resorting to violence to sell movies, I am shocked

Man have you watched some of them children's Cartoons lately. Mr Gibson's movie might have a more family orientated venue as an alternative.

[Malva Zebrina]

71. violent or not violent

it is only a movie and it is the figment of the producer's imagination. All biblical stories are the figment of someone's imagination, and few stories present the whole, inconsistent view that is present in the bible, because there would be no coherent story were they to do so. I would rather teach my child to think rather than to be "told" what to think. No one knows what really happened and the accounts in the bible are not to be taken with any grain of salt, since all is hearsay and since those who were "reporting" the events had an agenda, a political agenda as well. I would not let an actor teach my child to accept everything he reads in the bible and would point out the inconcsistencies and improbablilities of what is written in the bible re the man Jesus and his crucifiction.

I find it amusing that this story is becoming so popularized. Does anyone think that a story of the Buddha's life would be so popular? There are plenty of followers of that spiritual leader also. He only died under a tree of a tummy ache, so I guess the blood and gore would not be there to herd in people to watch the horror story.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

73. No one is forcing parents to go, are they?

Parents are still the ones who decide. If parents agree with the church they go, if they don't they don't. I'm so sick of this. I can't wait till the movie is out so people can just drop it!

[JNelson6563]

74. Very powerful tool

to ensure lifelong dedication. Children are like clay. They see that the anger and guilt will be huge. It is a shameful attempt to emotionally manipulate children. Much more blatant than their usual MO.

Terrible.

Julie

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Manipulating?

Parents teach their children and typically pass along their own belief system. Good parents teach kids about public service and not committing crime and such. Bad parents don't worry about it.

Parents also pass along their religious views, as is their right.

[JNelson6563]

130. All are manipulated

That is the name of the game when it comes to "faith" in anything non-tangible.

Julie

[Jane Roe]

76. It would be instructive to know . . .

what age Jewish children are first exposed to graphic Holocaust images (real and fictionalized). I am sure not every Jewish kid gets to see these images at the same age, but do most of them have to wait until they are 12? 16? 18?

Have any Jewish children reported emotional damage by being exposed too early in life?

I think that this is information the Catholic and Christian communities could use in making better informed parenting decisions.

[LeahMira]

139. In Hebrew school...

what age Jewish children are first exposed to graphic Holocaust images (real and fictionalized). I am sure not every Jewish kid gets to see these images at the same age, but do most of them have to wait until they are 12? 16? 18?

In Hebrew school, we don't show children any graphic images at all. After Bar Mitzvah age, if they choose to continue in Hebrew school, we may ask survivors of the Holocaust to come and speak with them. I guess that option won't be available in a while, but we have some excellent people now who focus on helping those who are suffering persecution of any sort. Their focus is sort of because we were oppressed and know how it feels, we have a special obligation to comfort and help others who are suffering and resist those who oppress others.

In college, we have them read some of the literature that was written during the Holocaust or about the Holocaust both by Jews and by non-Jews. That would include the journals from the Warsaw ghetto, novels like The Painted Bird or The Shawl, and Elie Weisel's books. This past semester we had an instructor who showed films about the Holocaust... from The Gray Zone to Schindler's List... and students were to focus on the way the Holocaust has been "sold" to film audiences. The History department has a course on the Holocaust that takes in 1933 to 1945 as its time frame. The college Jewish student organizations may sponsor a trip to the Holocaust Museum in DC, since we are fairly close to DC.

I'd say that it's up to parents if the parents feel that their kids can handle the graphic images. Recall, though, that some of the children's grandparents are Holocaust survivors, so those children may learn directly from them. In Jewish day schools or Hebrew school (evenings and Sunday mornings) we don't show them the graphic images. Really, we have 5,000 years of Jewish history, plus Hebrew language, plus our liturgy and beliefs, etc. to teach them.

[Az]

77. This is a tricky issue to discuss

It brings to light a nasty part of propogation of some religions. Keep in mind the Crucifix is one of the most violent images in our culture. We have been so overwhelmed by it that we have been desensitized. But it is a horribly violent execution.

Keep in mind the Protestant sects do not use the image of Jesus on their crosses. The Catholic Crucifix maintains the image of Jesus on the cross. The suffering is a vital part of the hook for the religion. The horror of what Jesus went through must be maintained as the hook to keep doubters from sliding. That is any doubt can be countered with pointing out the suffering Jesus endured for them. This combined with various other tactics is a very effective means of pusing members back into line. The violence and horror are vital to the story.

Constant references to Jesus' suffering are made. It is often made to seem that no one suffered as much as Jesus did. That his suffering was somehow more than any others. This is erronious even in the context of the story. Two others were crucified along with Jesus. There are other entirely more horrible ways to die in this world and most of them inventions of men. Yet Jesus' suffering is repeated and repeated to the congregation. The violence is key to the belief structure.

This is why there is no condemnation from the clergy concerning the violence in the movie. How much pain and suffering are too much to represent the suffering Jesus' underwent. He is supposed to represent the ultimate in sacrifice. To shy away from the graphic nature of his sacrifice is simply something the clergy will have trouble doing. It would be akin to saying "Oh sure he suffered but not quite that much." You will not hear this from their lips.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. Those of us who believe

Believe that Jesus suffered and died for all of us. One would logically conclude that, to accomplish this, the suffering must indeed be great.

Even those who were crucified with Jesus had not undergone the torment that he had -- the whipping, the abuse, the crown of thorns.

You appear (note the use of the word, not making judgments) to have issues with Catholicism or their teachings.

[Az]

79. None in particular

I try not to air my personal issues with various religions. The point I was trying to make about the degree to which Jesus suffered is to point out that the invention of man has far supassed that tortures heaped upon Jesus. Yet the story continues to put his suffering before any others. This is simply necissary for the context of the story. Yet today we have the means to not only physically torture a person but we can amplify that with drugs and psychological torture.

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. I'm in agreement with you on this one Az

I don't there is any scriptural justifcation to imply that Jesus' suffering was greater than that of anyone, at any time.

Jesus' suffering lasted but a few hours. And while terrible, I don't know if it's equal to the suffering that some of my cancer patients in the hospital have undergone - months of constant pain and agony, sometimes longer. Or the suffering of the diabetics I've been involevd with, who keep losing body parts. And not to mention the terribly cruel, and far worse, methods humans have invented to induce pain and agony. Such as my friend Rinu, held captive and tortured for 7 years by the Khmeer Rouge (however it's spelled) in Cambodia before escaping.

I've argued in this thread that the suffering of Jesus is essential tot he story, but I would never suggest that Jesus suffered more than anyone ever has. Nor would I dwell on the suffering of Jesus except as a foundational motif - the basis from which his saving act has value and merit, which leads us to hopefully lead lives of reducing the suffering of others, and the knowledge that, whatever we are suffering, our God has also suffered, and understands, at least partly.

[Malva Zebrina]

99. Nice post

I have also seen over my lifetime, the suffering of human beings in the throes of disease being dragged out for years, not to mention the agony of the family that suffers along with it. You have posted a post that succinctly describes that severe suffering.

In spite of people "praying" for that suffering person and not for other suffering persons, BTW, people die in agony far greater than the mythology of a man who willing died for our "sins" .

He knew,so goes the myth, BTW that he would be resurrected in three days, according to the mythology and would not really "die" IN fact the record of the bible tells us that he was still alive!! The agony of the cross is a myth. There were hundreds who suffered the Roman crucifiction. Hundreds who were crucified in this manner. Hundred were tied or nailed to a cross and displayed for all to see. Hundreds.

It is a myth that appeals to people who get off on guilt and suffering and sacrifice and martyrdom. We "sinned" so it was necessary for someone to "die" for our "sins"

Personally I do not believe in "sin" as defined by any religious church. It is only a way to control and to tie us all up in guilt. We do good things, normally, because we want to survive as a group not because we fear retribution for some religiously defined "sin"

We are here living a life, often times it is a constrictied life. But we are all here living that life, dependant upon other human beings for our survival , whether we would like to admit that or not. (those who would not admit that we are dependant upon the ARabs or the Palestinians, included_}

We have not evolved to the point where our brains can get that message across to the entire world.

Everyone is so caught up on their own survival and their own wealth . That is the real tragedy.

And the religions perpetrates the violence. It is no surprise that the three religions of "Abraham" are still killing each other in spite of all the emotional "hallmark" greeting cards they would like to think describe them as "loving" people who are the "right" religion and the "true" religion.

The fact is, and the history shows that they, all three, are NOT loving peoples, but are peoples who are still in the violent, tribal killing each other mode. We have NOT evolved beyond that yet.

We may someday, but it is not to happen in my lifetime, I am sure.

[smirkymonkey]

113. Good post!

My feelings exactly, however I would not have expressed them as well.

[LeahMira]

140. You don't know that...

Even those who were crucified with Jesus had not undergone the torment that he had -- the whipping, the abuse, the crown of thorns.

Crucifixion was a pretty common Roman form of execution, and you have no way of knowing what other tortures anyone suffered while in a Roman prison. Given what we know about the things that go on in our "civilized" American prisons, one can only imagine the cruelty that must have been prevalent in ancient times. No one recorded it at the time, or if they did their records are long since lost. That certainly doesn't mean that it didn't happen. People do tend to make sure that these kinds of things are not recorded.

The poster is absolutely right. Whatever Jesus may have suffered seems mild in light of the tortures that others have suffered throughout history, and even in modern times.

[Catt03]

117. Mel on Primetime ABC) now 10PM EST

nt

[PeaceForever]

129. I was surprised at the interview, how well Gibson did

I watched the interview, and Mel Gibson very emphatically agreed that there was a Holocaust and that it killed over 6 million Jews. However, his own father believes much less than 6 million died.

Mel is a conservative Christian, but it was funny how he snuck a jab at Dubya about the missing WMDs. He said something about going somewhere where no one could find me--like where the WMD are, I'm sure no one would find me next to some WMD. He did not come off as a looney toon, as I thought he might. So I may not agree with all of Mel's views, but I think he seems like a pretty intelligent guy.

[drdigi420]

82. you seem surprised that religion has stooped this low

again

you have to remember, with every scientific advancement, the end of religion is closer, they are getting desperate to keep their myth believed

we are going to see some severe ugliness as the beast of religion dies, it won't go easy, and it will try to take out as many ppl as possible on the way out

[ArkDem]

85. or not.

.

[wuushew]

92. God died in 1966

[smirkymonkey]

115. I do think that we are experiencing the

death throes of organized religion - it just isn't working anymore. If it was, would so many of it's followers be so consumed by hatred, fear, violence, intolerance and anger?

It may take hundreds of years for an according shift in human consciousness to absorb these changes - that is if we don't all kill each other first - but I just think that humanity is evolving to the point where our divisions, be they religious, political, racial, etc., will destroy us as a species if we do not give them up. We all need to recognize our place as members of the greater global community of human beings. Just my opinion, of course.

[DrWeird]

87. It's subtitled, isn't it?

The whole thing's in Latin and Aramaic.

I suspect there are going to be a lot of surprised southern baptists who didn't know they were going to have to read. And they're going to be pissed off to find out Jesus didn't speak English

[Az]

91. Originally it wasn't

The intent was to not have it subtitled. I believe pressures built and Mel had to compromise his artistic intentions.

[trogdor]

88. I'm watching Life of Brian on Ash Wednesday.

Screw Mel Gibson.

[smirkymonkey]

118. One of my favorites!!

In the midst of all this insanity, we need a good laugh every now and then! Enjoy!

[Cleita]

96. So nothing changes.

I was forced to see "The Ten Commandments", "Quo Vadis", "The Robe" and "Ben Hur" when I was in Catholic school. If you ever do catch these movies on AMC, the cheesy factor and bad acting at least makes them amusing.

[VOX]

100. And be sure to visit the Pa$$ion $tore online!

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/store.html

Here you can buy movie books, soundtrack CDs, fan packs with posters, door hangers and more junk.

It appears that, as with all movies, the bottom line for "The Passion" is profit. BIG profit.

[aquart]

121. Soundtrack? They scored torture?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

102. I think there is a certain...

hypocrisy going on here.

This is a violent R rated film -- and a hard R at that, from the folks who I've seen interviewed about it. One reviewer I saw likened it to "Saving Private Ryan" in it's level of onscreen violence and gore. They recommended that taking children to it should be not done lightly, and flat out said it was inappropriate for anyone under 15.

Now, I have a feeling that most of those good folks wouldn't dream of letting their precious young children go to see, say "Gangs of New York" or "The Godfather" or even "Saving Private Ryan" because they would feel it too much for them. But this is somehow okay. Um hmmm.

I was taken to see "Bonnie and Clyde" when I was 8 (this was pre-ratings). Clyde was family on my Grandpa's side, so we were interested in it. I was pretty traumatized by that film, especialy that image of someone getting shot in the eye. I had nightmares about it for weeks.

To subject a child -- especially a YOUNG child -- to this type of violence is pretty unconscionable. That this may be done in the name of religion is borederline grotesque.

[mac2]

116. The Children's Crusade was terrible was it not?

Sometimes, I just don't understand parent's and their relationship with their religion...chruch. Sending young children to war in a Crusade. I always thought that terrible. Poor dears.

[dawn]

108. I don't see the point in it being so violent.

Now I can see why I was so turned off to the Catholic church. There is no way I could sit through the movie...I would be bawling. I couldn't imagine a kid seeing that.

I also couldn't make myself see Schindler's List. I know what happened in the camps...I just didn't want to see it re-enacted on film.

(sarcasm)
You know, maybe films about the Dalai Lama and the Chinese occupation of Tibet should show the "real" story...I mean, why not show the Chinese crucifying and performing vivisections on Tibetans? That's how it really happened, so everyone should see it re-enacted on film. (/sarcasm off)

flame away...

[mac2]

114. Just like the movie Martin Luther....

Years ago, all the Protestant churches bused people to see the movie, Martin Luther. Not violent though.

The Catholic chruch told all their members NOT to see it. We had one movie theater in our town and they were Catholic so we had to bus to another town to see it.

What struck me strange was a Priest came down the isle with one of the smoke type things they swing around...just before the movie. I could never figure out what the point was except....they disapproved of it.

This is why freedom of religion/or not is so important. Whoever has the most power will prevent others from their belief. We fled Europe for that reason.

Yes...some brought their hate with them to this country even after they suffered so much there. The Pilgrams were very bigotted against Catholics, etc.

Now, we haven't allowed it because, we know better. It seems this type of hate is back with those in power now...the RWers. They want political and religious control over government..using our public dollars.

I'm sick of violence in our society and the world. Give me a good love story or comedy...and I can feel entertained. Suffering isn't entertainment for me.

[truizm]

122. Does anyone know if Mel is going to donate the profit to charity?

I considered going but if he's not donating the profit to charity, I won't.

[hippywife]

132. I was raised Catholic

and I do remember the emphasis always being strongly on the crucifixion but little on the resulting state of grace that it was meant to accomplish. Only the constant meme of "He died for your sins" but without the full explanation of what that was supposed to mean. I remember the heartbreak of going through the Stations of the Cross. It was very emotional. How else to keep the proper amount of fear and guilt in the forefront of developing minds? Kind of like the ritual game of fear the Bush adminstration plays with their constant color alerts, really.

It wasn't until I was an adult and began studying for myself and going to a non-denomination Christian fellowship that the impact of the result of Christ's suffering was made clearly apparent.

I still cry uncontrollably during the scenes of Ben Hur when Christ is crucified and those scenes aren't very graphic at all. It doesn't need to be graphic to evoke emotion. Depicting something so graphically takes away from the creativity and its ability to respond that is inherent in the heart and mind.

All that being said, regardless of the movie in question, I think it borders on irresponsible to take a child to see a movie that is controversial at best without seeing it first yourself. You may know, or think you know, what a child can handle but the unknown portion of the equation is still yet to be seen if you haven't seen the movie first for yourself. You can't make that decision for the child unless you know both sides of the equation.

[Bridget Burke]

134. Catholic religious art has changed....

More modern churches do not concentrate on the gory details as 19th century ones did. I'm mostly discussing American churches here--the older ones were built by immigrants & usually stocked with standard, colorful, lugubrious religious art from Europe, shipped over in bulk. The more "tasteful" reproductions of Gothic architecture were often built by the Episcopalians.

Washington's Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is a fine modern example of recent Church architecture, with its gleaming neo-Byzantine mosaics and "Christ in Majesty" as the centerpiece.



Of course, in that basilica, all the images of Jesus are outnumbered by the ones of his mom. Mel's new Fundy supporters would find it quite scary. (It is an amazing building & worth a visit.)

[FredScuttle]

141. The upside of this...

At least the Catholic Church is now taking the kiddies out for dinner and a movie first...