I found Ed Kilgore’s comments on Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie about Jesus’ Passion very apposite. Kilgore comments on the applause for the movie from evangelical Protestants thus:
These are people, for the most part, who don’t place much stock in the liturgical calendar, and the particular relevance of the Passion to the annual cycle of meditations about Christ. Moreover, these are people who often think St. Paul’s comments on gender relations or homosexuality – or for that matter, the entire Old Testament – are as central to Revealed Truth as the gospels themselves. Presumably, most conservative evangelicals would be as interested in, say, a movie about the cursing of the Cities on the Plain as with anything specifically about the Passion.
And third, I’m a bit concerned, though not surprised, by the sort of Popular Front thinking that has so many conservatives from every religious background expressing total solidarity with Gibson’s faith, which is by any standard a bit eccentric, and by Catholic standards specifically, heretical or at least schismatic. I realize that many conservatives share the Left’s eagerness to transfer political and cultural ideological labels into every realm of life, including religion … conservatives should beware embracing just anyone who calls himself a conservative.
Popular Front thinking! Now that captures some of what is going on within the American Right these days. I reserve judgment on the movie till I’ve seen it. But everything I’ve heard worries me. Gibson is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought; his emphasis on the Jewish priests in the Gospel narrative violates official Catholic concern about fomenting anti-Semitism. And his focus on the physical suffering of Christ may be excessive. Jesus suffered terribly – but so did many, many others in his day, on exactly the same lines. The point of the Gospels is to relate the Passion to the rest of his teaching and, of course, to the Resurrection. It is not to engage in portraying blood-curdling violence for dramatic or shock value. I will wait and see the thing myself. But I don’t trust Gibson an iota.
NEWSOM AND MOORE: Thanks for the emails pointing out some important distinctions between the actions of Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom. Here’s one of the most succinct:
Judge Moore did not get into trouble for violating the law. He got into trouble for defying a final court order holding that he had violated the law.
Newsom has clearly violated Family Code Section 300, although whether that is OK, in light of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, remains to be adjudicated. The difference is that, unlike Justice Moore, Newsom will not defy a final court ruling on the issue.
American history is replete with public officials who “violated the law” out of principle. (Lincoln, Truman, for example.) The difference is that, unlike Moore, they respected the authority of the courts to find them in violation.
There you have what I think is a significant difference. But I’ll be happy to post cogent opposing arguments.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I performed for Howard Dean about a month and a half ago, and I really loved him. So I’m very disappointed he f***ed it up … It’s over. He’s finished. He lost his cool. He’s too reactive and he blew it. He has terrible Scorpio anger and he hasn’t learned how to harness it yet. So this will be a great spiritual lesson for him.” – comedian Sandra Bernhard to the Portland, Ore., gay newspaper Just Out (courtesy of Rex Wockner).
UNILATERALISM IN HAITI: The French are thinking of sending a “peace-keeping force” to Haiti. Without the U.N.’s approval? How could they? But the really lovely part of this BBC report is how they delicately refer to the U.S. intervention that brought Aristide to power:
Mr Aristide – a former priest who was restored to power with foreign help in 1994 – is under pressure to quit from opposition politicians and armed rebel groups, who accuse him of having rigged the 2000 elections.
My italics. Priceless.
The Dish 