Free Republic

Okay, I want a Come and take It shirt. Where do I get one?

See, fireworks should only be done by professionals -- oh, wait . . .

Wow! Sounds like this will be as big a hit as THE PASSION. I just know that my church is going to buy out the theatre and take all our youth to see it.

Dershowitz is probably correct on this one. There's an old and largely forgotten principle in Anglo-American law that says that the safety of the community is the greatest good and that there may be times that the executive branch HAS to act outside of the law to protect the people. There are long periods of time when the legislature isn't even in session, much less able to act quickly in an emergency. The rule was that the executive should go ahead and do what was necessary even if it meant breaking the law, but THEN, afterwards and at the first opportunity, the executive has an obligation to lay an account of its conduct and the circumstances before the legislative authority. The legislature would then either pass a resolution retroactively justfying the executive's illegal action (if they agreed it was justified) OR would proceed to impeach the executive for violating the law.

This happened in 1779 (I think) when Thomas Jefferson was governor of Virginia. There was (or may have been) a plot by Loyalists to seize and destroy the lead mines in SE Virginia on which Washington's army depended. The county militia officers, mainly Colonel Crockett (not the Alamo guy) and Colonel Lynch (yes, that one), acted swiftly to arrest suspected loyalist conspirators, many of whom were whipped etc., although no one was hanged. AFTER the conspiracy was crushed -- if there was a conspiracy -- they wrote Governor Jefferson an official report describing everything they had done. Jefferson laid it before the legislature, which passed a law indemnifying the militia officers and their men. What the law said was that if anyone brought criminal or civil action against Crockett or Lynch or their men, they could plead the act of indemnification and the judge was to consider the case against them null and void.

Nope, sorry, I just saw THE ALAMO and thought it was excellent. Farah is wrong, very wrong. It is extremely accurate. Credentials: I visited the Alamo often growing up and regard it as a shrine; I have a PhD in American history; and I own and have read dozens of books on the Alamo, which I "wargame" with miniature soldiers. The film is an accurate portrayal. There are many legends about the Alamo -- which is fine and good, but not to be confused with history. The real thing is heroic enough, it doesn't need mythologizing. Thornton's David Crockett is more heroic than John Wayne's, because he is not a natural hero. he's a politician and accidental folk hero/superstar who wonders whether he can live up to his reputation. And in the end he does.

Well, she's correct, but what an odd piece of writing. One simply doesn't expect to see this sort of logical analysis from the other side.

He's mine. A nice guy, and has been reliably conservative, except that he voted for Campaign Finance "Reform." I'll write him a personal note about this and see how he responds.

Hooahh! Go Dennis!

The Aaronsons clearly didn't just happen to overhear their neighbors' phone conversation and happen to have a tape recorder handy. They presumably were listening a LOT to their neighbors' conversations and were prepared to tape what they heard. Legal or not, I find that at least as offensive as what the Quigley's said, and I'll bet the jury did also.

As far as I know there's never been a film based on Acts, which is filled with exciting things -- riots and murder plots and prison escapes and ship wrecks -- and also dramamtic miracles. And a great deal of humor, also, as when Paul preaches so long he puts people to sleep and one kid topples out of a third story window and Paul has to run down and resurrect him -- and that pumps him up so much he goes back to preaching and talks all night!

Of course God doesn't hate you for it. God loves you, that's the point of the (real)Passion and THE PASSION (film). I hope you'll see it; I've seen it twice and will go again. It is an experience of worship. No substitute for regular prayer and church, but an excellent supplement to them. And Liz is correct about the socio-political cultural implications.

The March issue of FIRST THINGS (mine was in yesterday's mail) has an article on THE PASSION that mentions Emmerlich. It's by Russell Hittinger and Elizabeth Lev. They note that "one of Gibson's scenes is taken directly from Emmerlich. After the scourging, Pilate's wife Claudia gives linen cloths to Mary and the Magdalene, which they use to mop up the sacred blood." It's an excellent review, by the way, written after they saw the early version of the film. Major points include:

"Jesus does what he teaches. In the sacred text itself, the last twelve hours contain only the tersest dialogue. The parables have all been spoken. The disciples have slunk away. From here, the question of the Christ is telescoped by Gibson into what we see -- or, more accurately, what we are able to watch."

"Ultimately THE PASSION is about witnessing and bearing witness. On one level, the film is calculated to make us want to turn away and go home. At the outset, Jesus tells his disciples in the garden that he doesn't want them to see him in such a condition. . . Thankfully, as the scenes become harder and harder to watch, the viewer is offered an example, a guide as to how we are supposed to react to the increasingly disturbing images. . . .Mary's face is the most reliable clue to the meaning of the unfolding events."

First rate!

Sorry if I was too obscure. I simply meant that if Jesus is the second Adam -- and we are also told we are His brothers and therefore co-heirs with Him -- then He is not just preparing a place for us as I fix my dog a place sleep, He is preparing a place for Himself and for us, the rest of us, with Him. I.e. by His grace we are to be like Him and in that sense He's one of us.

Joseph was dead by then -- he was much older than Mary, as was the custom then. That's why Jesus has to appoint John to be Mary's son, to support her.

Yes, indeed. It's not just that Jesus Christ WAS God and Man; he still IS God and Man. He is the second Adam, and he's preparing a place for, not just for us, for the rest of us.

Lack of redemptive spirituality?

What about "there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood"?

I think the sheer physical reality of it is the redemptive point.

You are perfectly correct that Judas and the high priests (and Pilate et al)were carrying out their parts in God's plan. I imagine that's one reason (among many) for Jesus to ask God to forgive them -- they don't know what they're doing. It's also why we're all to blame and all forgiven.

"The scene with Simon were amazing. Perhaps the most amazing was after Jesus fell the second time, Simon helps him back up, encouraging him to go forward, telling him that he's almost there, that he can make it. I found myself "rooting" for Christ not to give up, to continue and then it hit me that he was only going forward to his own death; but then I realized that this was the whole point."

For me also the interaction between Jesus and Simon was powerful, but I saw it differently. I saw Jesus helping Simon help Jesus carry the cross. And when Jesus' arm wraps over Simon's as they're carrying, I lost it (again).

The problem in portraying Christ either in words or visually is that He was completely man and also simultaneously completely God -- we believe that without understanding it. Any portrayal is going to be hard put to balance those two incompatible natures. I think visual images do tend to emphasize Jesus' humanity; how could it not be so? We can't make an image of God and the Second Commandment forbids us to try. Gibson's Christ is very human. But there are some moments when he seems Very God of Very God, also. For me the most Godlike moment is when Jesus has been whipped to the ground and stands back up, as the disbelieving Romans stare -- and then switch to the more vicious whips and batter Him down again. That's the whole Passion in a nutshell; He chose to be there, He chose to suffer, and He chose that the suffering be the worst possible. His pain, our gain, as they say.