Posted on 12/17/2004 9:49:11 AM PST by missyme
In perhaps the most horribly bigoted piece I have ever read in my life, Frank Rich from the New York Times this morning excoriates Mel Gibson, Christians, Christmas and just about everything else that is good in America.
It’s a long piece, but the whole gist of it can be summed up by the fact that Rich calls Christmas “pervasive.” And a merry one to you, too, Mr. Rich.
Says Rich on Gibson and The Passion:
As we close the books on 2004, and not a moment too soon, it's clear that, as far as the culture goes, this year belonged to Mel Gibson's mammoth hit. Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh, is as representative of our time as "Godspell" was of terminal-stage hippiedom 30 years ago.
The Gibson conflation of religion with violence reflects the universal order of the day — whether the verbal fisticuffs of the culture war within America, as exemplified by Mr. Donohue's rant on national television or, far more lethally, the savagery of the actual war that radical Islam brought to our doorstep on 9/11.
Hmm. That’s nice, he compares The Passion of The Christ to 911. How can we take this seriously? How can the New York Times print this hate speech? Oh … that’s right, it’s the New York Times.
What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian)..
What it’s about, Mr. Rich is the obvious bias and hostility the cultural elites like ex-film critics at the Times and Hollywood libertines feel and express in virtually every medium toward people like me, just regular middle-American folks. And then you have the temerity to say it’s all “imaginary” and use you column to even further paint mainstream Americans as dangerously out of the mainstream.
And yet one need look no further than Mr. Rich’s column (indeed not further than any given page of the Times) to prove the very hostility he claims never existed. Frank Rich and his elitist coastal pals who are living in a fantasy world.
Now onto the clear flaws in Rich’s column. He writes: “As for The Passion of the Christ, it achieved the monetary landslide of a $370 million domestic gross (second only to the cartoon saviors Shrek and Spider-Man).”
Did you catch that? Second only to two other movies. One could even say it was third only.
And then, after a long and tortured screed about how 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas and Christmas is so “pervasive” in this country and how we are the clear majority, he proceeds to explain why we are merely a vocal minority:
The power of this minority within the Christian majority comes from its exaggerated claims on the Bush election victory. It is enhanced further by a news culture, especially on television, that gives the Mel Gibson wing of Christianity more say than other Christian voices and that usually ignores minority religions altogether.
Now we can be either an abusive and peacock-strutting majority or we can be a paranoid, nasty minority, but we cannot be both, Mr. Rich. We know why they would publish such horribly anti-Christian ordure in their pages, but why would the New York Times allow such bad column writing on it’s pages?
If ever there was a reason to sign our petition, Frank Rich’s column is it.
How come nobody ever describes Andy Rooney as a plagiarizing, condescending, bigoted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his Irish heritage?
Now you are being absurd.
Scourging means to be severely whipped. I have read those scriptures in the Bible where this is described.
I will be blunt and descriptive of what I disagree with here:
The movie portrays pieces of flesh being repeatedly torn from his back. These pieces appear to be about half the size of a man's thumb. This occurs on numerous occasions during the beating. Later, we see Christ's robed back, no blood is visible. One - The beating, as portrayed would have killed him.
Two - The after affects of the beating were not correctly portrayed.
Fair enough. Take care.
bump
How come nobody ever describes Andy Rooney as a plagiarizing, condescending, bigoted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his Irish heritage?
Only because he wasn't the subject of this article. I would also add that Rooney likes to play up his WWII war correspondent years for cover as well.
Alas, so many bigots, so little time.
No, they used a whip with metal insets on the ends of the strands, meant to rip flesh apart.
The point I think of the beatings in the film is that Jesus took on the beatings the whippings that human beings deserve, through-out the Bible the Jews sacraficed innocent animals to reconcile with GOD, frankly I don't understand this concept but I beleive that GOD has commanded it so I will accept it based oh GOD's plan and my desire to do his will..
Jesus was slaughtered like an animal we do not have animal sacrafice to be reconciled with GOD because Jesus took the sacrafice so we all have a chance to be reconciled with GOD through his death and resurrection.
His jealousy of Mel Gibson seems to be eating him alive.
Not exactly. The Greek word for "scourge" is mastigein which is a cognate of the word mastizein which means "chew" or "rend". I'll point out that the English navy used to flog seamen instead of scourging them, and they often died from just the blows of a rope, let alone the teethed instruments of hide often used in the Roman era.
I have read those scriptures in the Bible where this is described.
Scourging is nowhere described in any detail in the protocanon and only once in the deuterocanon (so-called Apocrypha).
The movie portrays pieces of flesh being repeatedly torn from his back.
Correct. Just like in a real life scourging of the period.
These pieces appear to be about half the size of a man's thumb.
Correct. Just like in a real life scourging of the period.
This occurs on numerous occasions during the beating.
As it would in a real life scourging of the period.
Later, we see Christ's robed back, no blood is visible.
That would depend on the thickness of the garment, how long it has been worn and how tightly it is held against the skin.
One - The beating, as portrayed would have killed him.
Not necessarily. There are records of scourging victims with exposed spines lingering for days.
Two - The after affects of the beating were not correctly portrayed.
You'll have to be more specific than that.
Search the scriptures and you will find no indication that the whipping was not as portrayed.
No, I won't.
This is tiresome. It seems some wish to accept Mel's movie as a new gospel, I simply take issue with his interpretation and his portrayal of it on the screen.
Sensible people can disagree on an interpretation. I am satisfied to leave it at that.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss cinematography with Jesus. But somehow, I have the feeling that the finer points of Mel Gibson's movie will be of little interest to him.
"This is tiresome. It seems some wish to accept Mel's movie as a new gospel, I simply take issue with his interpretation and his portrayal of it on the screen.
Sensible people can disagree on an interpretation. I am satisfied to leave it at that."
Well said. Excellent discernment.
Thanks.
I just read your post 26. You have stated, in a far more eloquent manner, exactly that which I was trying to say.
My words seem to often be misconstrued with other meanings being taken to them by others. I guess I will have to be more cognizant of that in future postings.
Everything the Left even thinks of is CRAP...they are the idiot children of the world!
The Romans used whips with pieces of metal on the ends or leaded weights. The desired effect was to put the condemned into a state of shock before execution, thus less trouble
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.