Scorsese had been wanting to make that film since the early 1970s and it was clearly the work of believers (Scorsese was a former seminarian and writer Paul Schraeder was raised in a fairly strict Calvinist faith). It had no ties at all to the anti-Moral Majority movement a lot of people tried to pigeonhole it into upon release. It simply took a long time to get made. As I said if Scorsese had his way it would have been made in the early 1970s. Ebert had traditionally been hostile to overtly anti-religious films (Priest for example). He did not become raving until a combination of Siskel’s death and a bad case of B.D.S. set in.
No it wasn’t, calling that anti-Christian trash a work of devout, believing Christians is absurd, and untrue, frankly a lie, you don’t know what Scorcese’s religious beliefs are, but we are pretty sure that he is not a devoted Christian.
Christians despise the film, as did the rest of the people in America, and your lack of conservatism is showing not just in your adoration for the movie, but in your admission that you couldn’t see the liberalism in Ebert that the rest of us were mocking.
I wonder what your reasons are as a Christian, to love this movie?
This isn’t the first time that you have taken this exact same role in defending an anti-Christian movie, and the Hollywood left.
I think your own biases and liberalism are on display, as your claw for this silly, flop of a lefty movie, and an old famously lefty, movie critic.