John Nolte: “Don’t Piss on My God and Tell Me It’s Raining”
John on November 5, 2009 at 9:13 am
At Big Hollywood, John Nolte responds to this post by Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times. Nolte correctly points out that a new $150 million biopic of Mohammed — which promises not to show its main character out of respect for Muslim religious taboos — is very different from the treatment Christianity receives in Hollywood. Specifically, Nolte points out that The Passion of the Christ was rejected by every studio in Hollywood:
To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios wouldn’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic [The Passion], but as we now know throwing a little urine on Christ and stereotyping Christians as falling for a drop of piss as a divine sign is perfectly okay.
To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios won’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic, but this was okay. And so was this. And this. And this. And a confession. And this. And this. And…
Look what I did. I listed a whole bunch of high-profile studio films that “many view” as anti-Christian released by the very same studios who refused to release a film “many view” as anti-Semitic.
I’d list the independent films and television episodes “many view” as anti-Christian but the Internet only holds so much data.
Nolte ends with the line in my headline.
Patrick Goldstein really has a losing hand here. The last film which showed enough deference to Jesus to not show his face on film was Ben Hur, produced in 1959. Fifty years later, at a time when Islam is a spark to violence and mayhem around the world, Hollywood is going to make a respectful biopic of Mohammed.
Meanwhile, it’s difficult to keep up with the anti-Christian TV shows and films coming out. I’ve lost count of the number of times Christians have been shown to be liars and ideological murderers on Law and Order.
There is another film coming out soon which has a similar budget to the Mohammed movie, but a far less respectful view of Christianity. Agora is a $150 million costume epic which dramatizes one of Carl Sagan’s cherished grievances against Christianity, i.e. that Christians destroyed the great library in ancient Alexandria. The historical evidence for this is rather thin. According to Plutarch, much of the library was burned by Julius Caesar in an attack on the city in 48BC. What remained may have been transferred to another library. But no matter, Hollywood can still afford $150 million to slander Christians as book burners and reactionary science-haters.
That reminds me…there’s a new version of Inherit the Wind coming based on the Dover trial. Like the original, I’m sure it will be a scrupulously accurate take on events.
Category: Movies |
Well, I don’t see most, if not all, the references in Nolte’s as anti Christian or having anything to do with Christianity. Would he, or you, consider the many movies about the bloody Spanish Inquisition as anti Christian?
November 5, 2009 @ 10:01 amThe “Passion Of the Christ” is antisemitic – blaming the Jews for the death of the Messiah is nothing but antisemitism and historical ignorance.
You also can’t deny that Christians merrily burned books and prohibited the dissemination of knowledge.
All this said, making a “respectful” movie about Mohammad is sick. The guy was a liar, child rapist, cheat and more – this is according to Muslim texts. Just tell the truth, which should be enough to inflame most Muslims. Or ignore him. I am sure that a respectful biopic will be an Islamic propaganda movie.
Awesome post! Keep up the superlative work!!!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange??
November 5, 2009 @ 10:31 amThe “Passion Of the Christ” is NOT antisemitic, as it does NOT blame the Jewish people for the death of the Christian messiah. It places historical blame upon the ruling majority faction within the Jewish religious power structure and most specifically the leader of that faction.
That’s a fundamental and important difference.
November 5, 2009 @ 10:35 amJust as blaming the democratic or republican party for whatever real or imagined ’sin’ is NOT the same as blaming the American people.
The Passion was not anti-semitic and didn’t blame Jesus death on “the Jews.” On the contrary, the first frame is a verse from Isaiah, “By his stripes we are healed.” Gibson’s intent was always to assign blame for Jesus’ death to all humanity. His intent was exemplified by the fact that, although his face isn’t shown, he portrayed the soldier nailing Jesus to the cross. His hand was holding the mallet, not “the Jews.”
As for Nolte’s list, may I politely suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The entire plot of the DaVinci code revolves around Christianity being a lie concocted by misogynistic churchmen. Descendants of said churchmen resort to murder to conceal the truth. Not anti-Christian? I’m not sure how it could be any more anti-Christian than it is?
And if you don’t think the Golden Compass had anything to do with Christianity, again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The same with The Invention of Lying.
It’s not just that they plan to make a fawning biopic of Mohamed, but that the treatment of Christianity is so overwhelmingly negative by contrast.
November 5, 2009 @ 10:36 am#4,
Who put the mallet in that hand? Pontius Pilate.
Why did he do so? The Jewish power structure demanded it.
If Gibson’s intent was to place blame upon all of humanity then where do Jesus’ followers fall within that calculus?
If Gibson meant to assign blame to that part of humanity’s psyche that is ‘divorced’ from God then he demonstrated his limits as a director.
November 5, 2009 @ 11:40 amUh, it was the Jews that crucified Jesus. That doesn’t mean that we treat them as a lesser people though.
November 5, 2009 @ 12:04 pmActually, it was the Romans that crucified him, as only the Romans had the power to do so. But it’s true that the Jewish leadership wanted him dead. This is not a Gibson-added twist on the story. It’s taken directly from the Gospels (which also indicate that Jesus’ death was both necessary and for all humanity).
Gibson’s intent was indeed to place blame on all humanity, including himself. I thought he did a very good job with that.
November 5, 2009 @ 12:43 pmJohn – V for Vendetta I don’t get. I wasn’t paying much attention to it – it was on whilst i was in the room – but don’t recall any reference to ‘the church’. And it has Natalie Portman in it. Which might explain why I don’t remember much else about the movie, come to think of it.
November 5, 2009 @ 12:57 pm#7,
If Gibson’s intent was to place the blame upon all of humanity… then again, how do the majority of humanity that would not have harmed a ‘hair upon his head’ fall within that calculus?
Could only standing between the Roman soldiers and Jesus, with death a certainty, be the sole proof of non-culpability in Jesus’ crucifixion?
What support is there for the assertion that just our humanity alone makes us all culpable? Even if we presuppose that all have sinned, most have not murdered. Is stealing a DVD the equivalent of murder?
If not, then there is a qualitative difference between “falling from grace’ and culpability in an unjust execution.
November 5, 2009 @ 1:46 pmI saw V on TV. I’m not certain what Nolte’s point was with that one vis a vis Christianity, but I believe the film does suggest that the tyrannical government in the film is some kind of religious theocracy. Also, the main character wears a mask which is based on Guy Fawkes who some have described as a “Catholic terrorist” for trying to blow up Parliament.
However, the film itself actually embraces terror as a means of social change. I found this more offensive than the theocracy theme.
November 5, 2009 @ 1:59 pmJesus asserted Himself that he was to lay His life down and die willingly for the sins of the world. A cursory reading of John’s gospel makes this painfully clear. In Mark we have Jesus purpose for the Incarnation: “For the the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many”, Mk:10:45. Look up the word ransom (lutron) in your lexicon and your on your way to penal substitutionary atonement. Gibson does a stellar job of displaying this in his movie.
By the way, the Jewish leaders and the Romans were bit players on God’s theological stage. Also bear in mind that the early church was almost exsclusively Jewish (please review the beginning chapters of the Acts of the Apostles). This anti-semitism thing just isn’t there.
November 5, 2009 @ 2:00 pmA sample of V.
Unity through Faith is the slogan of the tyrannical gov’t. They have a symbol that looks like a cross.
November 5, 2009 @ 3:21 pm“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28)
I know others on here feel different, but in my understanding, a sin is a sin. You either are perfect or you are imperfect, there is no inbetween. All sin grieves God – your comparison is viewing things from a very limited, human perspective.
November 6, 2009 @ 7:50 amSee, I have to agree with the pricipal. All religions should be equally disrespected.
November 6, 2009 @ 7:36 pmdemocrat muslim illegal commies are far more dangerous than the the jew bastards or even the spic scum..criminal democrat scum should be killed..thank god the police paralyzed thescum muslim killer..,make him eat his balls
November 15, 2009 @ 7:48 pmPissbeuponthem, you make about as much sense as Susac.
November 15, 2009 @ 9:14 pm