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.
Yep. If the Passion does not get any nominations, and that lying piece of garbage Moore On created DOES, I'm starting a campaign to boycott the Oscars.
boycott the Oscars.
I think that's a Fabulous idea!
With all the looser Yahoos screaming at these people walking down the red carpet it would be marvelous to have a group in protest on the other side....
Let's ping someone with some pull....
Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd, Chevy Chase, Nancy Pelosi, oh never mind, there's far too many candidates for that honor, LOL.
SOunds Good!
What is this "Oscars" you speak of?
Fair enuf, on a lighter note thanks for a nice FReeper homepage.
I am glad you liked it and it is nice to know someone saw it. ;)
The annual parade of lunatics....
Not trying to prolong an argument, but again I'd like to point out that the Bible says that Jesus was so horribly disfigured that he was unrecognizable as human. That indicates a pretty darn bad flogging, not just a severe whipping.
Not necessarily. There are records of scourging victims with exposed spines lingering for days.
For more intriguing discussion on the Crucifixion and the physical torment leading up to it, I like Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ. It discusses much more than the specifics about what scholars think the torture was like (in fact, the book makes the "case", from the standpoint of a law review author and former atheist, for believing in a historical Jesus). But the sections on Jesus' treatment at the hands of the Romans are particularly interesting.
Strobel is incredible. I recommend all of his books.
Wow. If that's perhaps the most 'horribly bigoted piece' he's ever read in his life I suggest he get's out on the web a little more. Maybe even reading other pieces might help.
If you can picture the following conversation:
Newcomer - "Well, Jesus, you know that movie that guy Gibson made?"
Jesus - Yes, my son, I do recall that. What of it?
Newcomer - Well, when the were beating the crap, oops sorry, forgive me. Oh, yes, you already did. I'm sorry, I am a bit nervous here.
Jesus - That is understandable. Please, continue.
Newcomer - Well, when they were scourging you that way. Did bits of flesh really fly off all over the place, hitting the guards in the face and stuff?
Jesus - My son, to think of such matters, does it really serve a purpose?
Newcomer - Well I was just curious.
Jesus - Certainly, but in a rather morbid fashion I must say.
Newcomer - ahhh, well, I uh.
Jesus - Is not the purpose of my suffering being ignored when one dwells on such details?
Newcomer - Yes, sir, You have got me there. But I was talking to the Freeper's and
Jesus - And did not those who saw the movie, perhaps the one's who learned from it these reasons, they are ones we should be concerned with and thankful of Mr. Gibson's movie, despite his, cinematic license in some minor areas?
Newcomer - Well, yes I guess so.
Jesus - Freeper's? Yes, a fine group indeed. Much more level headed then some of those others. On occasions I lurk at their opposition site, DU, it is called.
Newcomer - Yes, DU.
Jesus - Well we must forgive them and pray for them. They do mean well. But Satan does still reign strongly in some quarters.
I think this has been a great discussion in any event. Freepertoo, can you point out the verse you mean?
pcgTheDestroyer, I have The Case for Christ; it is great. If you are into Apologetics, I'd like to recommend a book by Norman Geisler. It is called The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics that is absolutely phenomenal. He is a logician and a professor. He writes on theological arguments of all the major philosophies from an Conservative, Evangelical perspective.
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.