by Carl Pwccaman, Unknown News
March 5, 2004
Boundary stones are set firm and tall, moved, set aside, obliterated during war, set up again, and sometimes laid to rest. The ocean washes away the sands of the shore, changing the outline of a coast. Territories are marked and re-marked, and locals are found remarking that the foreigners that come to work for a ridiculously low wage, should be rounded up and punished.
It is impossible to live well without boundaries at all, and yet it is impossible to live well with over-restrictive boundaries.
Not that this is an issue of some cosmic principle of balance, as if that was inherently a good thing, and neither is it a dogma about moderating between extremes... far too many compromises and balances are only worldly practicalities, pragmatic considerations having nothing to do with quality of life or human dignity.
This is an issue of human dignity. Torture is not acceptable to human dignity, this is a firm boundary. Abusing others with our preferred boundaries, is also not acceptable to human dignity. There is no balance to be made, no desirable compromise at all, no moderation in terms of what is acceptable, here. We must affirm boundaries, without abusing boundaries.
Our culture in many ways reflects a lack of boundaries, or demolition of helpful boundaries, as well as the over-use of needless boundaries, an abusive use of boundaries. Often the one reaction instigates the other counter-reaction. From Mel Gibson and Passion, to Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses, to discussions of whether torture is acceptable in the "War on Terror," to the choice of moral issues that rile up the vitriol of religious leaders, to the conduct of the media, to the things that somehow do not produce outrage, like the murders of transgendered people in America, there is a lot of confusion of issues. Some boundaries are crossed without comment, it is seen as normal in our society to cross them. Other boundaries offend and distract from an even more disturbing transgression. Our society makes no sense. We need to look at how we respond as a culture, and what values really do need to be affirmed.
Sadistic passion
Mel Gibson admitted that he said: "I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog", about New York Times critic Frank Rich. And yet his movie is championed by those who would claim moral authority, those who claim the right to set the social boundary stones. Where is the outrage at such an outburst, and where is the outrage that it was passed off as a joke, and where is the outrage that he would be seen as a religious guide to Christianity? Where is the outrage at this man's lack of character? Where is the outrage at those who preach on immorality in the media, and then let Mel Gibson's comment slide?
To get insight into Mel Gibson's character and psychology, it is worth noting that he is associated with an ultra-conservative movement in the Catholic Church, that rejects the Vatican II reforms that occurred in the '60s. Part of Vatican II included publicly affirming that it isn't fair to blame the Jews on Jesus' death, and another part was having the Mass said in a language understandable to the congregation. Mel's father wrote many books against changes in the Church since Vatican II, including one titled Is the Pope Catholic? He is part a Catholic subculture that is concerned with Masonic-Jewish conspiracy theories involving the Church since Vatican II, and has recently expressed Holocaust Revisionist views in a radio interview. Both Mel and his father are part of an extremely traditionalist movement that is considered schismatic by the Roman Catholic Church. Mel Gibson himself said that since Vatican II the Church is false, that it wasn't him that left the Church, it was the Church that left him. He is the sort of Catholic that some would say "think they are more Catholic than the Pope." Mel is so deeply involved in the ultra-conservative reaction against Vatican II that he had a church of his own built on his property, and had his own priest brought there to say the mass in Latin.
Opus Dei is also associated with the general ultra-conservative traditionalist camp within the Catholic Church. Mel Gibson certainly has high-ranking Opus Dei contacts. Gibson's directing assistant Jan Michelini is in fact a supernumerary of Opus Dei, and Jan's father, Alberto Michelini, is a leading Opus Dei figure in Rome, and a personal friend to the Pope. It is disturbing to some Catholics that the Pope has Opus Dei members surrounding him, particularly those who are handling his publicity, in his state of poor health. In any case, this gave Mel access to some of the Pope's publicists, who are also members of Opus Dei, and lead to a viewing of the film by the Pope.
A controversy resulted as a report from Vatican publicists said the Pope approved the film, and then the Pope said no he did not give an endorsement, and so the Vatican approval was retracted, saying the Pope generally does not give public opinions on artistic works. To give you an idea of the crowd that Gibson hangs around, Opus Dei is a secretive Catholic organization that is open to lay Catholics (Catholics who are not monks, priests, or nuns) and happens to practice self-mortification.
Particularly, for a period of time every day they wrap a piece of barb-wire around their thigh, tightly it enough so that it may draw blood. The practice does leave scars. They also flagellate themselves.
It is the sort of thing that is a remnant from Medieval Monastic days, but outside the walls of the Monastery. With Opus Dei, there are also concerns about cultic manipulation and pressures, raised by former members, including questions about fund raising and recruitment techniques, and the type of guidance given by spiritual directors.
Some charge that Opus Dei has manipulative and deceptive group dynamics, utilizing various unhealthy group pressures to a dangerous degree, and in that sense some would consider it a cult, or cult-like. (For those interested in concerns about Opus Dei, see the Opus Dei Awareness Network, "a worldwide community of people who have had painful experiences as a result of their association with Opus Dei.")
Regarding religious issues and concerns about the sort of support the film has received: Mel Gibson has typically produced violent movies, but his comment directed to a critic -- "I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog" -- combined with these other facts really do raise questions as to why this movie is championed so much by certain religious leaders (Evangelicals, conservative Christians, certain Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists, and Pentecostals).
In any case, Mel Gibson is not what I would consider a good choice for a religious leader, and is not suited to be a religious teacher, either. His particular production will certainly teach and lead many who see his film. In purely religious terms, I don't know why his film is taken as if it was the Gospel itself, when it is only the Gospel according to Mel. He is elaborating it in certain ways, according to his own fantasies. It portrays not the whole Gospel, but elaborates upon the crucifixion alone, without the life and teaching of Jesus, without the Resurrection. The Crucifixion is given a few short passages in the Gospels, a small portion compared to the rest of the material covered.
This does happen to be the one part of the Gospels that Gibson can indulge in expressing gore and brutal violence. Why is Mel's limited, narrow, and distorted vision accepted as valid? Why are some affirming Passion, which is limited to the crucifixion, above and beyond Jesus of Nazareth, a classic that covers the whole story of Jesus from the Gospels? Perspectives are very skewed, on these matters.
Mel Gibson's Passion features a 45 minute continuous scene of torture, the brutal beating of Jesus by Romans. It is said Jesus' eye is crushed in the process. Rated R, the film is designed to provoke visceral reaction. Yet ignoring all this, the film is said by some Christians to be important for all Christians to see. Some intend to take their 12-year-olds to see it. Are they really consenting? Are they really aware of what they are getting into? Why can't they simply be told about it in general outline, the way it is in the Gospels? What if the child says they don't want to see it or aren't sure? What do you do in a movie theater packed with church members, when you are overwhelmed and don't want to displease others? It is not considered important by some that this is in fact a psychological assault? Many will say they aren't taking their children to it, but then wonder what all the fuss is over. Isn't it clear?
Where is the outrage that this man's struggle with his inner demons, manifest in the form of a visceral and brutally violent R-rated movie, is being marketed as an important film for all Christians? Where is the outrage that some are taking children to see it? Where is the outrage that it is so explicit, even for adults?
Against Subjecting Children (Or Myself) to Gibson's Passion
I'm really outraged at the idea that children will be forced by their parents, or pressured by people at certain churches, to see this movie.
At 4, I was psychologically assaulted by a crucifixion scene, and it created issues I had to work through, and it was only the musical Godspell. But this Gibson Passion movie will certainly scar many psyches, feeding/creating some deep psychological issues, and not just for 10 or 12 year olds. It will assault adults as well. I left religion altogether for a while, and part of it is remembering how insensitive Christian adults were in taking me to Godspell at 4 years old, and the pressure of religion on children, insensitivity, etc, in general. Now my soul is secured as a heretic, so don't cry over me, but I'm certainly not a conservative Christian. The experience didn't guarantee my Christianity, or my acceptance of blood atonement theology, I know that. And this particular Passion movie would not have done anything to lead me to appreciate Christianity. At any rate, anyone who takes a child to see it is acting on out of gross ignorance, insensitive lack of compassion towards the child, or quite simply, depraved motivations.
The movie would deeply trouble me, so I see no reason to afflict myself with it, either. I have enough empathy for the suffering of others, to understand what torment is, whoever it happens to, without subjecting my psyche to this movie's abuse. Yes that comes from my own baggage, including my experience with Godspell but consider how random and chaotic reactions to this movie will be. It is Russian roulette, a loose cannon. Despite my desensitization in many ways, after countless horror movies, I'm sensitive enough to be disgusted at what this movie will be like.
Comparison to Rob Zombie's satanic passion
As a movie, in terms of portrayal of excessive, explicit sadism, Mel Gibson's Passion is in the same category, as far as I'm concerned, as Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses. I think it is also similar to Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, in its grotesqueness and sadism. I didn't appreciate either of those films, and I can certainly handle horror movies. In Rob Zombie's movie the bad guys won and you felt you got punched in the stomach, feeling depressed and deflated. The feeling lasted fairly long after the movie was over, it was demoralizing and simply glorification of sadistic abuse.
It is the explicit sadistic abuse that I'm complaining about. I've seen enough REAL trauma, in my own life and others, to be disgusted at the most traumatic that Hollywood presents as 'entertainment' or that religionists portray as 'good for the soul', and to consider it a bad thing to encourage others to see such movies. Some people just have no clue what movies can accomplish these days, in terms of disgust and abuse, at their worst.
To really appreciate suffering, all I have to do is open my eyes and look. I don't have to go far. To contemplate crucifixion, all I have to do is contemplate, and if I want to understand better, maybe do some reading. I don't think it is a sacrament to see a movie that portrays such sadism explicitly. You get hormonal reactions, of anything from adrenaline to fear to panic, maybe approval from a peer group, maybe some guilt or confusion in the traumatic shock. Some people have no choice but to go through trauma. It makes no sense to CHOOSE trauma, or to argue that others will benefit from it.
Religious domination culture
Jerry Falwell scapegoated liberals, gays, feminists, etc., as being to blame for 9-11, within days of the attack, on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, and Robertson agreed with him. The inappropriateness of this should be obvious, but saying it was inappropriate just doesn't cut it. It was very immoral, unethical, evil, etc., for Falwell and Robertson to do that.
Pat Robertson has also invited proponents of theocratic domination (Kingdom Now, and Christian Reconstruction i.e. Chalcedon, etc., see Theonomic Christian Reconstruction/ Dominion Theology) as welcome and approved guests onto his 700 Club show. There is nothing patriotic about this. And Robertson has influence in the government, and among many Republicans.
Other glaring examples of preachers with disturbing character flaws include Benny Hinn, who has cursed his critics in California, and Paul Crouch, Kenneth Copeland and others who have also made threats to those who would 'touch the anointed' -- themselves -- with criticism, as if they had God-sanctioned authority to be free from criticism, to rule, as Apostles, as if the Apostles themselves weren't told by Jesus that they should not lord over others. Jesus told his followers not to lord over others. Fundamentalists and Pentecostals should know that, don't you think?
Yet moral condemnation of these evils is met with only faint assent by many who feel a need to excuse these men, to rationalize their excesses, to minimize the danger of this subset of Christian culture.
Torture culture
On CNN Talkback Live, MSNBC, local TV channels, and in the mainstream press in general, discussions of the acceptability of certain forms of torture creep up. The issue has come back up periodically, in the last couple years since 9/11. Too many find rationalizations for some form of torture, many making allowances for physical torture. That there is not outrage over it, is disturbing. It shows that our culture lacks sound firm boundaries on serious issues.
Success, survival, and prosperity, seem to be the only concern for many, while our integrity and character, our human decency, is sidestepped. Selling our souls for the impossible desire to be perfectly safe, is seen as an option, in reaction. Few are aware of the dangers of reaction and hysteria. The media itself is a core proponent of reaction, whether expressed in populist forms or through detached elitist intellectualizations. This explains the paradoxical nature of the media, that transcends the labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias. The bias is a bias towards reaction. And so at times the media contributes to the reactionary currents in our culture. It is that simple. 24-7 news, and consolidation of the news industry in the hands of a few mega conglomerate corporations fuels the problem. Being controlled by reaction is foolish, and it can seriously harm a constitutional republic. Reaction and demagoguery are dangerous to any element of democracy or human rights, and appeal to the worst side of human nature.
Bullying and harassment in general are among the most prominent evils, ignored and left unchecked around the world. Matthew Shepard was tied up and beaten to death, subjected to deadly torture, because he was gay.
And yet Fred Phelps and his cohorts protested his funeral. Where was the moral outrage towards the likes of Fred Phelps from the leaders of the religious right? Yet gay marriage and various efforts for fair treatment of homosexuals under the law receive the greatest amount of venom from Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, and many others in Christian TV, Radio, and books. Gay rights issues are treated as among the greatest of evils, seen as a conspiracy. Yet every month a transgendered person is murdered in the United States (over a dozen murders a year do to hatred towards transgendered people, see Remembering Our Dead).
The disproportionality of the discourse on evils, and the choice of evils that are focused upon, is absurd and dangerous. It is not healthy. It is not sane.
Re-affirming boundaries without abuse
The fact is, some boundary stones that demarcate or distinguish human decency, have been eroded or have been out-and-out demolished, by our culture. And some such boundary stones have always been weak, precariously poised, or prone to modification and changes in placement.
Some boundaries have been displaced. Other boundaries have been afflicted upon others abusively.
The choice of boundaries, and the methods of affirming them, in any culture, are issues.
There are boundaries between what I affirm as my own moral standards, and what can or should be enforced on others in society. There are boundaries between what I expect out of myself and others who claim to share my interests and values, and what I expect out of those who are coming from a completely different background or set of beliefs. There are boundaries that stand against physical bullying, harassment, psychological assault, and humiliation. There are boundaries that stand between affirming cultural values and imposing arbitrary boundaries excessively or abusively.
It is about time we affirm some boundaries, wisely. Otherwise foolish boundaries will be set by those who are abusive, those who themselves cross non-negotiable boundaries when they have the opportunity. People like Mel Gibson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell.
Some affirmation of boundaries without abuse
Torture is contrary to human decency. It is evil. Never excuse it, never rationalize it as alright. Speak out against it.
Don't encourage senseless violence. Encouraging such a thing is socially very harmful.
Encouraging a culture of mindless reaction is foolish and dangerous. Encourage the opposite, and be clear and open in your opinion against mindless reaction.
Humiliating others, psychologically assaulting them, or harassing them, is wrong. Say so.
Being a control freak is not right. Reveal the manipulation and power game motivations that you see. Call it wrong, call it selfish, call it foolish, call it abusive, call it what it is.
Afflicting others with boundaries abusively, is unacceptable. There is no religious, political, or philosophical justification for it. There is no justification for abuses of civil right or human rights by afflicting some boundary as an excuse. That is not legitimate.
When someone is harmed or defrauded, when someone is taken advantage of, when someone's consent is violated, when youths are taken advantage of by adults, when those under someone's authority are taken advantage, when those with a disparity of power over others abuse their position, it is proper to consider how to affirm and enforce boundaries.
Seriously question those who cross firm and well-placed, non-abusive and non-excessive boundaries, such as the ones above. Do not consider those who cross such boundaries to be reliable as leaders. If possible, do not put such people into a position involving any sort of trust. Prefer others if one can chose a leader. |
|
|
© 2004, by the author.
Comments? xoxounknown at yahoo.com
|
Mel Gibson is not what I would consider a good choice for a religious leader, and is not suited to be a religious teacher, either.
In purely religious terms, I don't know why his film is taken as if it was the Gospel itself, when it is only the Gospel according to Mel.
He is elaborating it in certain ways, according to his own fantasies.
It portrays not the whole Gospel, but elaborates upon the crucifixion alone, without the life and teaching of Jesus, without the Resurrection.
|
|
To really appreciate suffering, all I have to do is open my eyes and look.
I don't have to go far.
To contemplate crucifixion, all I have to do is contemplate, and if I want to understand better, maybe do some reading.
I don't think it is a sacrament to see a movie that portrays such sadism explicitly.
|
|
There are boundaries that stand against physical bullying, harassment, psychological assault, and humiliation.
There are boundaries that stand between affirming cultural values and imposing arbitrary boundaries excessively or abusively.
It is about time we affirm some boundaries, wisely.
Otherwise foolish boundaries will be set by those who are abusive, those who themselves cross non-negotiable boundaries when they have the opportunity.
People like Mel Gibson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell.
|
|
Our society makes no sense.
We need to look at how we respond as a culture, and what values really do need to be affirmed.
|
|
I've seen enough REAL trauma, in my own life and others, to be disgusted at the most traumatic that Hollywood presents as 'entertainment' or that religionists portray as 'good for the soul', and to consider it a bad thing to encourage others to see such movies.
Some people just have no clue what movies can accomplish these days, in terms of disgust and abuse, at their worst.
|
|
|
