• SeanRenaud said on Aug 19, 2008....

  Did you forget those Dutch Comics a few years back?  The answer here is obvious.  Christians will cry and moan and maybe take you to court.  Muslims will blow up your car.  With you in it.

• curmudgeon said on Aug 19, 2008....

  Right, exactly. To publish a poorly researched novel making Catholics look like a bunch of murderers is a brave stand for free speech, but to pussyfoot around Muslims is simply prudent business practice. Sorry - not worth my business.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 19, 2008....

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 19, 2008....

  Stupid SC.
   
  While I join you in being dissapointed at their decision you can't blame them from behaving differently when one group is going to either a) Watch your movie and give it scathing reviews or b) boycott it, and the second group is either going to a) riot, b) kill you c) kill your family.
   
  I can't lie and say that I'm less likely to insult a 6'7 367 lbs guy than I am a 4'11 87 pound kid.

• silverwhisper said on Aug 19, 2008....

  i think the author should self-publish his work online. i'd buy it.
  
  and herein lies the true heart of the matter: vaguely christian-themed stuff will sell well; muslim-themed stuff will not.
  
  it's just dollars and cents, guys: nothing more, nothing less, if you ask me.
  
  ed

• Eilan said on Aug 19, 2008....

  I don't understand why people--regardless of their religion--get so worked up over works of fiction. I mean, if you're going to get all bent out of shape over The Jewel of Medina or The DaVinci Code or the Harry Potter books, you should probably go under a rock and give up reading and thinking.

• curmudgeon said on Aug 20, 2008....

  Well if someone writes a novel trashing something you hold dear, calling people you know and love murderers, calling your valued historical or cultural icons child molestors and so on, wouldn't you get even a little worked up about it?
   
  Why would Dan Brown hoo and haa about how well he researched his novel if he didn't want it to be afforded some scholarly credibility? It's plainly hypocritical to talk about one's attack on the catholic church as being some kind of legitimately researched work and then hide behind claims of fiction and ridiculing those who express their feelings about it.
   
  If the decision to quash Jewel of Medina were solely based on a poor sales projection, Random House wouldn't have gone to the lengths of hiring a scholar. It would simply have canned the book.
   
  People the world over have fought and died for expressing their views, however unpopular. The execs at Random House cry freedom when it's nice and safe to do so. 
   
  Cowards.

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 26, 2008....

  Hey Curm, you are right here.  The point isn't about what Dan Brown did or didn't write.  The point is the publishers extreme and haughty eagerness to publish anti-traditional Christian propaganda and their extreme and cowardly avoidance of publishing anything that even remotely touches upon anything Muslim.  This Jewel of Medina was probably not even going to attack Islam or Mohammed; it probably showed the both of them in good light.  Of course, Islam has a rule against any representation of the Prophet...so all go up in arms when he's represented (good or bad).  But wait.  Christians too believe in a rule set forth by God through Moses (traditionally).  The rule is "Thou shalt not bear false witness."  And yet Hollywood and Authors alike do this all the frickin' time.  Sean sets up a seemingly convincing reason why the publishers do it, and on the surface...sure, fear of being blown up could weigh into the decision.  But, overall, I think Silverwhisper gets the kudos...there is money to be had in bashing Christians...whereas...nobody, except Muslims...cares enough to hear about Islam.  Christians could rise up, threaten lives (not that the majority would, but let's pretend), blow up cars and publishing houses, and the press and publishers and the whole of the free world would pounce on top of them shouting..."See, we told you they were a bunch of Zealots."  Then they would print 20 more Christian bashing books, and make another 5 Chrisian bashing movies. 
  
  Back to reality.  Another part of reality is that everytime a stupid group of Christians opens their mouths to protest or boycott a movie or book, the producers of the film or publishers of the book get add FREE PUBLICITY!  Seriously.  Marilyn Manson's largest publiciters has been the dopey fundies out their picketting and boycotting his shows.  He has a home video called "Dead to the World" (it doesn't seem to be on DVD) where he actually goes outside his concerts and video tapes these wacky Christians on a Video Camera.  All of this just feeds into the frenzy that is Marilyn Manson...he owes a large part of his success on the dopey Christians who futiley tried to rid the world of his music.  Ha! I laugh at such dopery.  Anyway, I digress and am out of things to say for now.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 26, 2008....

  You live in some alternate reality.  Christians have a LOT more power than Muslims in the world right now.  IF Christians were to violently react to a peice of literature they wouldn't blow up cars, they wouldn't have to.  No need to be so hamhanded when the leader of the most powerful nation on earth is amongst your numbers.  Dead people don't write many books.
   
  The money that is in writing "Christian" fiction is lets be honest, this is America a country that is some oddd 80% Christian (alledgedly but we aren't going to debate that)  so the charachters are so much better known.  Everybody knows what the Cross is, the Shroud of Turin, The Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenent, the Spear of Destiny, Noahs Arc.  These things are deeply ingrained in our society and instantly lend "credibility" to a story.  I'm certain there are Holy relics and locations unique to Judeaism and Islam, like the Zigguraut and the Menorah but that's about it.
   
  I totaly agree with your Marilyn Manson statement. 

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 26, 2008....

  Listen Sean, the point is that there is gain for mocking Christians and that there is headache for mocking Muslims.  Hollywood could careless what people know.  Same with publishers.  Sure people know Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Roman Catholic Church...but did the majority of Americans know about the Priori of Scion, or the Knights Templar, or that there was some alleged conspiracy to conceal the royal blood line of Jesus Christ which can be decoded within DaVinci's Last Supper?  Your a smart guy Sean, so I am sure you knew of these things.  But did the majority of people?  Of course not!  Mostly because that conspiracy theory is bullshit to begin with, but also because most people know the traditional understanding of Christianity...not Dan Brown's Wet Dream Fantasy of being chased down by the Opus Dei. 
  
  Most of the people heard of Dan Brown's book because of the uproar it caused among Christians who felt threatened by the bogus anti-historical lies that Dan Brown put forth, from page 1, as FACT.  But again, I digress.  The long and short of it is that Publishers and Producers alike only push for books and films that will make them the most money for the least headache.  I think it was you who said this...they would rather 80% of American Alleged Christians screaming "unfair" than to have their faces on Al Jazeera with a pack of terrorists shouting "off with the infadel's head."  It is popular, even if unpopular with Christians (but they just equal free advertising), to make fun of Christ...it could be deadly, and costly (people losing their jobs) for insulting Muslims. That is the long and short of it.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 26, 2008....

  While I partially disagree MH, we are close enough to the same page that I don't feel a need to further debate with you.  It doesn't make them hypocrits, nor cowards.  At least not any more than it does a bussinessmen who outsources to China or India a hater of the United States.  He's simply sticking to what makes sense.

• silverwhisper said on Aug 29, 2008....

  m-h, you keep asserting that there's some gain to mocking christians. you haven't demonstrated that at all, AFAICT.
  
  ed

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 29, 2008....

  Ed, I don't think I need to spell it out...the proof is in the pudding.  The gain is money.  The Last Temptation of Christ, The Lost Tomb of Jesus (documentary), The Celestine Prophecy, The DaVinci Code, Stigmata, The Golden Compass (Implicitly and Subliminally), Dogma, etc., are just a few examples of Hollywood capitalizing on an anti-Church/anti-Christian message. And that is just Hollywood.  Do you want me to start digging up all of the Best Selling books that are anti-Church/Anti-Christian?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 29, 2008....

  I don't know what the Celestine Prophecy is, but Stigmata and Dogma are hardly anti-Christianity.  The worst you can accuse Dogma of is being anti-religious period. 
   
  Just like you can't call Warner pro-Christian just because Pinky and the Brain, Animaniacs, Tiny Toons and Batman have all had Christmas Episodes but none have had Hanukah. 

• silverwhisper said on Aug 29, 2008....

  m-h: the last temptation of christ was bashing christianity? i'm sorry m-h but if that's your yardstick then i think your yardstick's broken.
  
  ed

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  Ed, you take one thing on my list and call it broken.  And my list is by no means exhaustive.  I mean come on!  The Last Temptation was a poke at the way traditional Christianity views Christ.  I personally don't have a problem with any of the films mentioned.  I don't get offended easily.  So these films aren't mentioned because I am personally offended by the film.  The point is that these films go against the grain of tradition and are offensive to those who do take tradition seriously.  I do take tradition seriously, though I don't get offended easily.  But I do not speak for everyone.  The fact of the matter is...it is cool to offer alternative, or even satirical mockery of Jesus, but when traditional understandings of Jesus (such as The Passion of the Christ) are put forth they are wailed against as being (snuff films or anti-Semitic.)  Of course, Jesus was a semite, as were his followers, so it's really hard to buy into that.   Jesus and his followers formed a newer sect of Semitic-rooted Judaism (that only fully split apart in the end of the 1st beginning of the 2nd century).  I am sure you will try to say that Passion was anti-Semitic, but I disagree, and it really is a digression from the point of this discussion.  The fact is, in mainstream Hollywood, it is uncool to make a movie about the traditional Jesus, but the business of overly-humanizing Jesus (and ignoring his divinity as is partly the case in the Davinci Code and The Lost Tomb of Jesus), or questioning the purity of his character (as in the Last Tempation's claim that Jesus had secret, lustful fantasies of sexual encounters with Mary Magdalene), or plain old mocker of the Church and Christ, as is in the case of Dogma, is hugely popular because it draws controversy which in turn draws crowds.  And of course, crowds equal money.  The stick is not broken, it is real.  Christians are there own worst enemy in this whole thing, though.  Sean and I agree on that.  Angry Christians equal effective and FREE advertising.  Of course, it is important to note that Mel Gibson raked in huge money on the Passion.  I think that is largely because of the controversy Hollywood stirred up over it.  It was a mistake on their part and I don't think they would stir up the controversy if they could go back and do it again.  The more controversy, the more media coverage of something, equals the more people who will go out of their way to view it.   Anyway, the yard stick is not broken.
  
  Sean, I didn't just say anti-Christian...but I did also say anti-Church.  But the two are not mutually exclusive.  Let's not forget that.  The Celestine Prophecy (as I have both read it several times and seen the film) is largely anti-Church...not anti-Christianity per se.  It is your typical "the Catholic Church is evil and is conspiring to hide truths in order to subvert the masses to believing their teachings instead of what they KNOW to be true."  It came out, in book form, well prior to The DaVinci Code.  It was published in 1993.  Of course, the "celestine prophecy" shows that all religions are partly right, but partly wrong as well (a typical new age theme).
  
  I don't know that Dogma is anti-Religious, but it surely is anti-Established Church.  But what church is it attacking Sean?  Come on, don't shy away from saying it...it's the CHRISTIAN CHURCH (namely the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH) that is being attacked.  Don't split hairs.  Whether it is attacking Christianity as a whole, or the Church which represents Christianity as it has been traditionally understood, it is still profiting off of the skewed portrayals of the traditional Christian community. With the exception of the honorable and hilarious Mel Brooks (who makes fun of everything, no bars held), I don't see movies, or books, making fun of Judaism.  It is not politically correct to produce anti-Semitic writings or film.  (Don't bring up Dawkins, Hitchens, or the like as they are discussing the use, or lack there of, of Religion. They are not so much making fun of it as they are questioning and critiquing religion.  I am talking about movies and books that are for entertainment purposes...including half-witted, poorly researched, agenda driven documentaries).  James Cameron produced a documentary, "The Exodus Decoded," on how the miracles of the EXODUS could've, and perhaps did, happen.  The same James Cameron, produced another documentary in which he tries to debunk Jesus' physical resurrection by showing a tomb that had the most popular names of Jesus' day carved into it (Joshua (Jesus is Greek for Joshua), Mary, James, Joseph, etc.)  The odds of this tomb being the actual tomb are slim even with these names; however, they try to make the odds come in their favor...largely through "educated" (if it can be called that) conjecture.  There are a lot of holes in the filmaker's hypotheses, which are no more than pet-hopes.  The production of this documentary was merely to cause controversy and to gain ratings for the Discovery Channel.  In light of the of the Exodus documentary, it is clear the bias that Hollywood has against one religious path (namely Christianity and/or the Christian Church) over the others.  Well that is all for now.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2008....

  I see your point I hadn't (and haven't) seen all of the movies you mention.  I would still say that the Last Temptation doesn't seem to be anti.  If anything (IMHO) it makes (or would make but I'm not attacking Christianity at the moment) Jesus MORE heroic if he lived his life with all of the same temptations as the rest of us and resisted them, instead of being a super natural being that was simply flawless.  It's one thing for an angel to be crucified, he KNOWS there is a heaven, it's entirely different for you to give your life.  You BELEIVE there is a difference.  I just have a hard time with that being anti.
   
  Besides I could just as easily argue that The Chronicles of Narnia, The Stand, Left Behind are strongly pro religion (particularly the last one).  If you're willing to stretch a bit I'd argue that both the Matrix and Terminator are both messianic stories with an impossible hero (one an anomaly, the other who's father was sent from the future) save the world from their own sins (Enough people have a negative opinion of technology.  And John Connors initials happen to be. . .)  I could argue that End of Days (Arnold vs Satan), the Exorcist or any list of movies that reinforces the basic Christian/Catholic mythos is pro-religion.
   
  What's your opinion on movies like the Exorcism of Emily Rose?
   
  Also if I know we talk enough tha tI shouldn't have to frame this, but if I'm coming across offensive or belittling I apologize.  I really am trying to be civil.  I just disagree with your basic point.  I think Christianity=money because it's familar and Islam equals getting bombed.  Its a no brainer from really any stand point.  I do want to make money and I don't want to get blown up.

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  Sean, I agree with your assessment of Last Temptation, which is why I didn't get offended by it; however, the producers of that movie knew it would cause an uproar from the conservative Christians and that controversy would ensue from it's release.  They knew it, if not instinctively on their own, by the fact that the book caused some much controversy and by the fact that its author got excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.  Now I don't support that reaction, obviously, but the producers knew what they were doing when they made the film.  It was calculated, and I am sure you don't deny that.
  
  Chronicles of Narnia, and the Stand, and Emily Rose are all pro-Christianity for sure.  Left Behind is, of course, not a mainstream movie made by mainstream hollywood.  It is a Christian production and so I wouldn't count that in this discussion. Naturally a Christian production will be pro-Christian.  I am not saying that Christianity is always being attacked, or that the whole of Hollywood, attacks it.  I am just saying that it is the ONLY religion that is consistently attacked, and it is politically correct for Hollywood to do so.  I am sure I probably have come off making it like Christianity is alway attacked.  That would be foolish to say.  There are pro-Christian movies out there, and I won't be dishonest by denying that.  I am just saying that when push comes to shove, and it is time for another anti-religious movie to be released, you can bet which religion will be poked at.  (Borat might, and I am not sure it qualifies, be a loner example of another religion getting poked at...but it was more or less poking fun of the culture...not the religion).
  
  I liked the movie Emily Rose a lot; however, it was obviously pro-Catholic and put a negative slant toward protestants (in particular) Methodists.  Then again, most mainstream, Hollywood produced, pro Christian movies are pro Catholic, and usually anytime a movie comes out centering around protestants, they are often shown as being rigid and puritanical...which does not fairly represent most of modern, mainstream, protestantism.
  
  BTW, some of what I wrote I am sure you didn't read as I was reworking and adding to what I said.  There is an example of James Cameron's recent documentaries that proves my point a  bit.
  
  As far as your assessement about Christianity = money.  I agree.  I think you and I are mostly on the same page about that.  And I haven't found you offensive at all.  :^)

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  One other thing on Borat...I actually think it was more poking fun of our stereotypical views of people from that area in the world.  I don't think it was poking fun of their culture as much as it was satirically exposing ours...in much the same way that Blazing Saddles satirically exposed racism in our country.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2008....

  We seem to be mostly in agreement.  It's just in my opinion Christianity gets just as much praise in Hollywood as it does attacks.  We just notice the attacks because the attacks the Church is front and center and in thousands upon thousands of vampire flicks Holy Water and Crosses are tools.  That in the Exorcist the demon is the star not the priest.
   
  Also I would argue that other religions simply don't get media attention as a whole.  What pro-Jewish movies are there?  Schindlers List and The Diary of Ann Frank?  I suppose but those are really more anti-nazi than pro-jew.  What pro-Islam stuff is there?  Malcolm X and the Kingdom of Heaven (I'm stretching on the second one here)? I agree with your assesment of Borat.
   
  The other religions of the world are simply forgotten because they don't matter in this country.  We are unfamilar with their stories and traditions.  I'm sure there is a Muslim "Christmas" but I don't know anything about it.  Nothing about the birth of a savior or a few rebels who managed to get one day worth of wax to burn for eleven days.  I'm sure they have their heros but none so famous that we know they beat down an army of palestinians with the jawbone of an ass, tied torches to foxes tails and then had his hair cut and was blinded and with his final heroic act tumbled their temple on them. 
   
  The reason (part of) that Christianity=money is neither a deep love of the religion nor a deep hatred.  It's simply familar territory.  It's the same reason why you'll see three sequels, spin offs or remakes for every original idea.  One is safe, the other is a gamble and we're talking economics.
   
  Reading what you posted as I was typing I'll add that overall I don't think anybody is paying attention to James Cameron.  I don't disagree with your assesment of what he hopes to accomplish but I think all but the most incredibly hardcore Christian haters shrugged when they "found" the tomb of Jesus and find the Exodus Decoded to be an entertaining peice of fiction.  I'm one of the first people to say Inteligent Design is bullshit, but seriously if somebody predicted that red algae would kill all the fish, which in turn would let the frogs produce out of control, which would lead to them starving to death, which would lead to a huge population of insects soem of which would bite people and some of which would bite livestock, some of which would carry disease.  The red algae I think also supposedly poisoned the grain and te Egyptian tradition of caring for their first borns first and and thus they got the grain closest to the top and the Jews got the older leftover non poisoned stuff.  (as I recall only the sandstorm, solar eclipse, locusts and burning hail aren't somewhat naturally occuring and don't happen on a smaller scale regularly)  Honestly you predicting all that in a row qualifies to me as a reason to atleast say maybe, even probably there is an entity at least orchestrating things.  In short if Christians ignored Cameron he'd go away hardly anybody else takes him seriously.  At least I don't.

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  I agree with you on everything you said, actually.  I do agree that you have a point, at least where it concerns, pro-Islamic movies.  Not many of those. There are pro-Jewish movies.  An American Tale (about a Jewish Immigrant family), Rugrats was pro-Jewish (they even celebrated Hanukkah on it), Moses (Staring Ben Kingsley), Jeremiah (starring Patrick Dempsey), Joseph, One Night with the King (about Esther) and many others center around and/or show Judaism in a good light.  Some of the ones I mentioned were made, in particular were produced by Christians, though released upon the mainstream public; however, they are all retelling Jewish, not Christian, stories that are found in the Hebrew Bible.  But even if you do not want to except some ot the latter movie references I made (e.g., Moses, Esther, etc.), there are plenty of secular, mainstream, movies that are pro-Jewish.  And not all of them are centered around anti-Nazi rhetoric either.  I can dig them up if you'd like, but I don't think that is necessary.  Buddhism has been represented in movies, and it is always represented in a positive light (Little Buddha, Seven Years in Tibet, etc.).  The New Age movement has had its share of positive portrayals in Hollywood.  And when a movie like Blair Witch Project comes along, and pushes the negative imagery of witches, people complain and political correctness kicks in...causing new age "preachy" sequels such as Blair Witch 2 to be released.  Are there more on Christianity, both pro and con, absolutely!  You are right, it has a lot to do with familiarity...and I would argue that Judaism, being as close to Christianity as it is (being that over half of the Christian Bible is the Hebrew Bible...your Sampson reference is after all a Hebrew, not a Christian, Story), is a very familiar religion in America.  Anyway, that is all I have to add.  Overall, I do agree with your assessment.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2008....

  An American Tale. . .I'll grant you that in the honor of not arguing.  I would really call both American Tale and the sequel Fievel Goes west Pro America stories and showing the hardship that people went through to get to America and anti-communist.  Same with Rugrats, they celebrated Christmas (more than once if I'm not mistaken) and Easter, and Passover.  I think you're going a little thin here for what qualifies as pro-Jew but still I stand corrected that Jews are often shown in a positive light..
   
  I'll grant you that Budism gets some positive light, but to be fair it's not often shown as (what it is) an alternate religion.  It is most often focusing around the philosphy side of Busddism and is shown as something that is compatible with Christianity.  Still I don't disagree.
   
  New Age.  I'm gonna disagee with you because IMO New Age in many ways is an offshoot of Christianity.  Certainly actually Satanism (inot that such an animal as it is usually presented existed historically or truly exists currently) is purely Anti-Christian.
   
  It's true that half of the Bible is Jewish (more than half actually the New Testament is relatively short) but again Christians make up 80% of America (and roughly 60% of the world population, Islam is close to 30% and EVERYBODY else combined makes up the last 10 or so) so I have no problem with associating Adam and Eve with Christianity primarily.  Still your point isn't wrong.  Actually I think other than fine tuning that is fun we've come to an agreement.
   
   

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  Sean, My examples might have been a little thin; however, An American Tale does chronicle a Jewish family (of mice...lol).  Yes, it is also a pro-American film.  But aside from my examples, I could certainly pull up pro-Jewish movies that are not as thin as the examples I used.  But again, I think we are on the same page and it hardly seems worth the time.
  
  Sean, repsectfully, I was Wiccan for over a decade of my life, and I can tell you that Wicca is certainly no off shoot of Christianity.  In fact, neo-pagans in general will tell you that the "Christians" stole pagan ideas...not the other way around.  But that is neither here nor there.  They certainly are not the same thing.  SATANISM?  Satanism is not new age.  Not even close!   Any pagan would instantly disavow, and rightfully, any connection or relation to Satanism.  Now, it is true that Satanism is an off shoot of Christianity, but it is not related to the new age movement...not in the slightest.  Actually, I am not sure that you are even calling Satanism a part of the New Age movement (so if you didn't, i retract my argument). The Kabbalah is also an off-shoot of Judaism so, and does incorporate some (very little) Christian thought as well.  Santeria is a mixture of voodoo and Roman Catholicism.  Other than that, Wicca, Druidism, neo-paganism, etc. is not an off shoot of Christianity.
  
  With this said, it is kind of fun that we've come to an agreement.  You are right, the above I wrote and the stuff you've written are "fine tuning."  But we petty much agree!  Kudos!
  

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 30, 2008....

  By the way, I forgot to say this.  I agree with you on your assessment of the Last Temptation.  Now, I know you aren't Christian...but humor me while I think through this.  While I do hold a traditional understanding of Jesus' divinity...the point of the WORD (John 1) becoming flesh is that God took on the fullness of humanity.  Jesus was a human being.  Some people are afraid to admit this, because they some how feel it diminishes his divinity; I think it enhances his divinity.  What "sacrifice" would it have been if Jesus fully knew every outcome, didn't struggle with temptation...didn't have moments of doubt (Garden of Gethsemane)...etc.  Jesus had to have experienced all of that.  He had to have understood the predicament we humans are in because he, too, was in that predicament.  So, to me, the Last Temptation does show a Jesus who truly conquers sin and temptation.  But, my point in mentioning it was to simply say that many hardcore traditional Christians would (and did) find that concept offensive...even if they shouldn't.  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 30, 2008....

  My opinion on New Age religion is that they developed from "Satanic Cults" which is why we see so many of them recently.  They are distinctly anti-christian but their grown doesn't follow any sort of logical curve.  They were pretty much an extinct religion until the what?  70's?  Just like if Pastafarians ever gained a following I would consider them a Christian offshoot even none of the members considered themselves as such.  (or just as Libertarian seems to be the polite term for Conservative)
   
  I completely concur with your opinion of Jesus.  While I don't believe and while this isn't the point either of us are making (nor do we truly know what answer Jesus receieved in the Garden.  We don't know if God said "Trust me" if God said "Do it or else (which wouldn't really be out of charachter for him), or if God said nothing.  All we know is Jesus went through with it even though he was scared.  I would still argue that even if he was capable of fear he still KNEW there was a God which is different from what you do.  You believe (no offense) but you don't have open dialogue with him (or atleast most Christains don't) certain not in public where he claims you as kindred and that he is proud of you (When John Baptises him)

• mulgere-hircum said on Aug 31, 2008....

  Um, Sean.  I have to disagree, strongly, with your assessment of the New Age Movement.  Satanism and satanic cults are just that.  The term New Age began in the mid 70's; however, the movement was underway in the late 19th century.  The link above will give you a history of it.  New Age is a descriptive term which lumps together an eclectic array of different religious beliefs, some of which draw from major religions, and others which are completely separate and distinct from any major religion.  Wicca is a part of the New Age Movement.  It was popularized by Gerald Gardner in the 40's and he was drawing off of covens that claimed (though unprovable obviously) that they dated back to the covens that were driven underground during the Christian Church's European Witch Craze.  If that is true, or even partly true (again it can't be prove), then they would have been passing down tradition from the "old" pagan religions that pre-dated Christianity in Europe and lasted until they were completely (or so the Church thought) burned out of Europe.  Now, I am not saying I buy this history.  I am just stating that that is their claims.  But that is mostly a digression.  A source that Gardner was definitely pulling from was Dr. Margaret Murray who was prominent British Anthropologist and Egyptologist.  A lot of her claims have been dismissed; however, at the time, her theories became quite popular and she became known as a sort of expert in pre-Christian, pan-European Witchcraft.  Of course, it is highly, highly unlikely that there was a pan-European religion prior to Christianity.  There was just regional and/or local religions.  The likeliness of a widespread, unified, Eurpoean Religion is pretty much bogus...but Gerald Gardener believed it and passed it on to those he initiated into his "Wica" (a term he used for his initiates).  The point is, no matter how inaccurate Murray was, and thus Gardener was, they were not Satanic cults or anti-Christian.  They were aiming for the practice of a "pre-Christian" religion...not an anti-Christian religion.  And that is only one of the many paths that fall into the New Age category.  But none of them are Satanic. Now, granted, Anton LaVey formed his Church of Satan in the 70's and did try to piggyback on the coat tails of the New Age Movement by writing books such as the "The Satanic Witch" and the like.  But he wa not a part of the New Age Movement...but a part of his own movement promoting Satanism as a response against Christianity.  I repsect your opinion, I just don't agree with it and find there to be no historical basis for it.
  
  I agree with you on the whole BELIEF thing. You are right, that is a difference and Jesus had an advantage there.  Of course, the Markan account of the Baptism kind of hints at a possiblity that Jesus didn't really know that he was God's son to begin with.  Otherwise, why the theophany?  Why does God need to reveal TO JESUS (read the Markan account carefully) who he is?  That is neither here nor there as far as this discussion is concerned; however, it is an interesting enigma to puzzle at, that is, if you are like me and have no better way to pass the time ;^0
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2008....

  I've read all the history on Wiccans and as much as I respect their views, it still seems that most of the people that I"ve personally met are like lbfno7 here on SC.  They just decided one day not to be Christian and clung to a new set of beliefs.  But that's neither here nor there.
   
  I occasionally do think on it but usually I have better ideas.

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 01, 2008....

  Yes, there are Wiccans who became disenchanted with Christianity and went shopping elsewhere (i.e., the New Age isle of Borders), but with that said, I too, know just as many Wiccans (one of which is a really close friend of mine) who grew up in non-religious families with little to no religious background what-so-ever and chose to be Wicca because they found inspiration in it.  I also know Wiccans who were born and raised as Wiccans.  I mean there are Christians who convert to Judaism (I am not joking either...there are), there are Christians who convert to Islam, there are Christians who've converted to Buddhism, there are Christians who convert (oops...I mean evolve) to atheism...but I would not classify those four options as being anti-Christian religions nor would I (though Pat Robertson might) claim that they have ties in Satanic cults.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2008....

  All fair points.  I admit that my limited experience may have colored my opinon.

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 01, 2008....

  No problem Sean.  Overall, this has been a very good and insightful discussion in which we have found considerable agreement (a most uncommon thing for us).  ; ^ D

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2008....

  It's helps you to agree with me when you're not wrong.  O.O

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 01, 2008....

  Hmmm...It also helps me to not agree with you when I'm not wrong as well...just depends on the day and the debate...lol!  ; ^ P  Hope you had happy and labor-free Labor Day.

• silverwhisper said on Sep 05, 2008....

  m-h: i stand by everything i said, i'm afraid. :>
  
  ed

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 05, 2008....

  Ed...that's your prerogative, but please, don't be afraid...lol!  All jokes aside...I stand by everything I said as well. But I did give adequate evidence to back up my point.  Even if I retract The Last Temptation of Christ (and I think I adequately explained why I mentioned that movie)...but I'll retract it from my list of examples...I still listed movies in support of what I was saying.  Those were just a few on the top of my head.  I could do my homework (I am good at it) and dig up even better examples...but I really don't think that's necessary.  But if you do think it to be necessary...I'll be more than glad to do so.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 05, 2008....

  the issue here however is that we're talking about offended sensibilities, which are intrinsically subjective. my saying "this is a non-issue" is no more valid than your saying "yes, yes it is!"
  
  so conversationally, we are i'm afraid at a bit of an impasse, no?
  
  i mean, while i respect what you have to say here, we're at a pretty fundamental disagreement here, and i see no ready means whereby we can ford that divide. do you?
  
  ed

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 06, 2008....

  No I don't see where we can ford that divide.  If you cannot see that tons and tons of Christians are offended at stuff they perceive to be attacks against their faith, and often are attacks (or at least a prodding of) their faith, then you are right we are at an impasse and we'll have to agree to disagree.  I agree with you that The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't, perhaps (when it was written), intended to offend Christians.  It was the authors expression of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice.  It was unconventional, but not an intended attack; however, when the film was made, the controversy over that book had already exploded and gotten the author excommunicated.  So, it becomes a different intention for making the movie.  An attack, perhaps not.  I think it becomes a snub at traditional Christianity knowing that the reaction from them will bring the film more viewers.  Everyone, especially in Hollywood, loves a good controversy...until it is brought on them (as is the case with Passion of the Christ).  When Mel Gibson self-funded his movie and turned outside of Hollywood to produce it, he too caused controversy.  And the Hollywood elite tried to get people to not see the film by calling it "Anti-Semitic."  I have plenty of Jewish friends who do not think the movie is anti-Semitic.  And of course all of the "heros" of the movie are Semites, but who's counting.  Not to mention the Romans were made to look worse than the Jews.  So that call for a "boycott" of the film backfired on the Hollywood elite just like it always does on Christianity.  But I digress.
  
  I do agree to disagree with you if you do not think that Hollywood films, when they attack or prod a religion in America, that religion is sure to be Christianity.  Sure, as Sean points out, it has a lot to do with familiarity...but as I have pointed out...you don't see leveled prods or attacks of Buddhism, Wicca, Judaism, etc.  You just see films that are favorable toward those religions.
  
  But you know me, Ed.  I will agree to disagree.  I do agree with you that it is subjective.  Sure!  Everything for human beings is subjective.  But there is a such thing as a collective subjective...where a group feels similar feelings toward something and that is what we have here.  Anyway, even in our disagreement, thanks for hearing me out.
  

Comment on "Random House: Institutional Cowardice and Hypocrisy"

Currently tagged	hypocrisy literature safety publishers Non-Random Decisions (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment