MCOM 105: Diversity in Media: Religion & Spirituality in Media
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MCOM 105: Diversity in Media Reader Spring, 2007 Religion & Spirituality in Media
SEGMENT ONE: KEITH ELLISON
Congressman uses Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson in ceremony
Posted on: SF Examiner.com Story By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, The Associated Press 1/4/07
WASHINGTON - Keith Ellison made history in the nation's capital Thursday, becoming the first Muslim member of Congress and punctuating the occasion by using a Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson during his ceremonial swearing-in.
"Look at that. That's something else," Ellison, D-Minn., said as officials from the Library of Congress showed him the Quran, which was published in London in 1764. "Oh my God. This is great."
A few minutes later, Ellison took the ceremonial oath on the two-volume Quran with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at his side. So many of Ellison's family members came for the occasion that the ceremony was done in two takes.
Ellison, who had already planned to use a Quran for the ceremony, learned last month about Jefferson's Quran, and made arrangements with the Library of Congress to borrow it for his ceremonial oath.
Although the Library of Congress is right across the street from the Capitol, library officials protected the book from the elements by taking a long, winding underground route via tunnels. When they got there, a crowded room of reporters, photographers and videographers was waiting.
The Quran was acquired in 1815 as part of a more than 6,400-volume collection that Jefferson sold for $24,000 to replace the congressional library that had been burned by British troops the year before, in the War of 1812. Jefferson, the nation's third president, was a collector of books in all topics and languages.
Some critics have argued that only a Bible should be used for the swearing-in. Last month, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., warned that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims" will be elected and follow Ellison's lead. Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.
Ellison, the first black member of Congress from Minnesota, said earlier this week that he chose to use this Quran because it showed that a visionary like Jefferson believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources, including the Quran. Ellison's mother, Clida Ellison, said in an interview that she thought the controversy was good, "because many people in America are going to learn what the diversity of America is all about." She described herself as a practicing Roman Catholic.
"I go to Mass every day," she said.
Minnesota elects first Muslim to Congress (Story in The Jerusalem Post) Nov. 8, 2006
Democrat Keith Ellison was elected as the nation's first Muslim member of Congress on Tuesday, easily winning a Minneapolis-area district Republicans had not carried since 1962.
Ellison, who is black, is also Minnesota's first nonwhite representative in Washington. He said those things were only of secondary importance.
"I think the most important thing about this race is we tried to pull people together on things we all share, things that are important to everyone. We all need peace, and this Iraq policy is dangerous to our country," said Ellison, who has called for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Ellison said his campaign united labor, minority communities, peace activists. "We were able to bring in Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists," he said. "We brought in everybody." Keith Ellison during the 2006 Campaign in Minnesota.
(AP) Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, sees it this way: Osama bin Laden no more represents Ellison's religion than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity.
Ellison, a 43-year-old Democrat, won election to the House on Tuesday and will represent all of Minneapolis and several close suburbs _ a deeply Democratic, mostly white and largely liberal district that includes the University of Minnesota campus. Ellison is also the first black congressman from Minnesota.
He ran on a call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, universal health care, a higher minimum wage and a more progressive tax code.
The criminal defense attorney and state lawmaker suddenly finds himself among the most prominent members of his faith in the United States, at a time when terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists has focused unwanted attention on many American Muslims.
Ellison, who converted from Catholicism to Islam as a college student, insisted in a radio interview that he is "a politician who happens to be a Muslim" and that "there are people in a better position to speak on all things Muslim than me."
But having said all that, he acknowledged Thursday that his new prominence may bring a responsibility to speak for peaceful Muslims.
"Killing innocents is un-Islamic. Suicide is un-Islamic. Committing suicide to kill innocents is extremely un-Islamic," he said. "These people you read about, these Osama bin Ladens, they don't represent Islam any more than Timothy McVeigh represents Christianity."
Ellison rose quickly to prominence with fiery speaking skills and a tenacious approach to policy that for many recalled the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, a sainted figure among many Minnesota Democrats.
When longtime Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo announced his retirement earlier this year, Ellison immediately distinguished himself from a large crowd of Democrats who wanted the seat, and easily won the party endorsement.
But his candidacy stumbled over the summer with a string of missteps that included disclosure of unpaid parking tickets and late tax payments, as well as past associations with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Ellison, a local organizer of Farrakhan's Million Man March in 1995, said he did not know of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism at the time and has disavowed it. He was supported by Jewish friends and colleagues.
Voters said Ellison's background was not much of a factor in their decision to vote for him.
"I'm a fairly progressive voter, so a lot of Ellison's positions were attractive to me," said Chris Strunk, a graduate student at the university. "I'm happy to send a Muslim to Congress, but I would've voted for him regardless of what his religion is."
Ellison said his main message concerning Islam is that Muslims are not much different from anyone else. "It's just one religion among many," he said. "Our folks are quite ordinary, they care about the same things you care about."
He said he does not regard the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as "a clash of civilizations."
"If there's a clash in this world, it's between people who believe they can use horrendous, awful violence to achieve a political goal, against the rest of us," he said.
Ellison said he hopes more Muslims seek office around the nation in the next few years. "The fact is folks probably already know a lot of Muslims," he said. "They just don't know they're Muslims."
Opposing Points of View: The Quran & Congress, part one. The Minnesota Democrat plans to use a Koran instead of a Bible.
Poor naive me. Here I thought it was an encouraging sign of this country's respect for liberty and diversity that Americans would elect a Muslim to Congress in the midst of an international war against Islamic terrorists. No country is perfect, but we've come a long way on the tolerance scale since World War II when thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up into camps far from their homes Since 1984, Clarence has been a columnist and member just for their ancestry. of the editorial staff of the Chicago Tribune, and his column is syndicated nationally by Tribune Media But not Prager. Ellison's choice should be blocked, Prager wrote, "not because of any American hostility Services. Clarence serves The NewsHour as an essayist to the Koran, but because the act [of taking the oath and as a frequent member of the program's panel of on the Koran] undermines American culture." regional newspaper editors and columnists. He is also an occasional guest panelist on The MacLaughlin Group. Again, poor naive me. I had no idea that American Clarence's previous activities include 11 years as a civilization was so fragile. "America, not Keith reporter and assistant city editor for the Chicago Tribune; Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on," said Prager's headline on his blog. serving as community affairs director, reporter and planning editor at WBBM-TV; and writing for Chicago The America I know has a Constitution. In Article VI, Magazine, The Chicago Reader, Washington Monthly, it says that "no religious test shall ever be required The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, New York as a qualification to any office or public trust." Newsday, and Emerge. Besides, contrary to Prager's account, House members are sworn in together on the floor of the Clarence won a 1989 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, as chamber. The ritual that usually involves a Bible or well as a 1980 Illinois UPI Award for community service, another holy book is actually a ceremonial photo-op the Edward Scott Beck Award for overseas reporting, and with the speaker of the House. the 1987 American Civil Liberties Union James P. McGuire Award for his columns on constitutional rights. In Prager insists that he was not calling for a religious test. Yet, he also wrote this: "Insofar as a member of addition, Clarence participated in a 1972 Chicago Tribune Congress taking an oath to serve America and Task Force series on voter fraud, which also won a uphold its values is concerned, America is interested Pulitzer. in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Clarence is married, has one child, and lives in Congress." The Constitution does not have a Washington, D.C. religious test, but Prager does, judging by his writing. No `American' holy book Prager is not just another ambitious crank looking to feather his nest with a little pinch of old-fashioned demagoguery. He's got connections in important Published December 11, 2006 places. He was appointed by President Bush in August to fill a vacancy on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. WASHINGTON -- The first Muslim to be elected to Congress has not been sworn in yet, but he's The council oversees the taxpayer-supported Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose mission already taking heat. statement encourages visitors "to reflect upon the moral and spiritual questions raised by the events of Dennis Prager, a conservative columnist and radio the Holocaust as well as their own responsibilities as citizens of a democracy." The Council on American- talk-show host, objects to the holy book on which Islamic Relations, a civil rights group that supported Rep.-elect Keith Ellison plans to take his oath of Ellison's election, asked Bush to remove Prager office on Jan. 4. from the Holocaust Memorial board. It didn't think he was living up to the museum's mission statement.
Bush declined to step in. As White House spokesman Tony Snow put it, Ellison's holy book is "an issue that the president does not need to adjudicate and, therefore, will not." That's understandable. Bush has enough to worry about with sectarian clashes in Iraq without stepping into Prager's war over whose holy book is more "American."
Prager, you may notice, is the sort of commentator who uses the word "America" a lot, even when he is speaking for hardly anyone outside of himself. Or maybe I just don't live in Prager's America. Lucky me.
The Anti-Defamation League called Prager's views "intolerant, misinformed and downright un- American." I guess the league doesn't live in Page 2 of article: Prager's America, either.
Even Prager's fellow conservatives have not rushed No `American' holy book to his side. In the case of the conservative New York Sun, for example, Prager appears to have performed a minor miracle: He has made Ellison look sympathetic in the eyes of a newspaper that opposed his election. "Mr. Prager is not only wrong," a Sun editorial said, "but his comments are so outrageous and, by our lights, almost unbelievably The QURAN ignorant, that one just has to shake one's head in wonder."
Fortunately, Sen. Norm Coleman emerged as a welcome voice of reason late last week. He's a Republican from Ellison's home state and a member of the Holocaust Memorial board.
In that spirit, Coleman took a middle-of-the-road position: Ellison should feel free to use the Koran, Coleman said, and Prager should be allowed to stay on the board. "I don't agree with Dennis Prager," said Coleman, according to the Associated Press. "But I think it's absurd to rescind his appointment on the Holocaust board." The religious book of Islam. Sounds good to me. Both sides should back off in the spirit of all-American tolerance and mutual respect for differences. After all, we need to set a good example for Iraq.
Opposing Points of View: The QURAN & Congress, part two. The fact of the matter is that Page and From: Webloggin, “A Community of other moral relativists ignore the very real Blogging Excellence truth that the Koran is the text that is used by jihadists and radical Islamists to justify Blogging on Politics, Media and murder, slavery and torture across the Culture” world. This is different than the Bible or the Hebrew scriptures. Sure, there may be From: The Webloggin Editor: Dec. 12, incidents of fanatical Christians who 2006 believe that it is “just to kill in God’s name” - but these groups are far and few Clarence Page wrote an Op-Ed in the between. (Despite what the Rosie Chicago Tribune defending Rep. elect O’Dumbells of the world would have you Keith Ellison’s plan to use the Koran when believe). he is sworn into Congress on January 4th. Radical Islamists can be seen at the center I’d like to leave aside the fact that Page is of conflicts across the globe from genocide bona fide liberal apologist or that he often in Darfur to innumerable acts of terrorism displays the tendency to apply selective in the quest for the return of the moral relativism while hemming and Caliphate. There is no boundary or hawing over his objections – but I can’t. geographic location that is immune from Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to explain the wrath of the radical Islamist. This how Page rationalizes the use of the Koran terror is spread throughout the world, in a government sponsored event despite including the United States, Iraq, London, the fact that radical Islamic jihadists use Spain, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel, the words of the holy book to justify acts Lebanon, Syria and across Africa - and it is of terrorism. done by people who are swearing their allegiance to the Koran. To understand the I agree, poor naïve Clarence Page. Like scope of this misuse of the Koran I should many, he misinterprets the country’s point out that this is the short list. respect for liberty and diversity as a pact to look past objectionable acts for the There is an endless list of brigades and greater good of diversity at the expense of jihadist armies that kill in the name of liberty. Allah. Conversely there aren’t a whole lot of people of Islamic faith speaking out Page’s narrow application of tolerance against those who have kidnapped their hinges on the internment of Japanese religion by denouncing the radicals who Americans during World War II. This is a kill in its name. This is a fact. It may not be common liberal trick, find a cause, make pretty, it may not be religiously or racially an analogous comparison to some real or sensitive, but it is a fact nonetheless. imagined injustice committed by Americans in the past and apply that So it is fine to separate the Koran from the comparison as a blanket means test while hate and murder perpetuated by radicals simultaneously ignoring or pooh poohing in the name of its scripture. That may arguments that counter the work for liberal apologists like Clarence rationalization. Page. But it is not fine to discount the millions and perhaps billions of people who On the outside this looks like a valid are currently enslaved or running from the comparison, after all, innocent Americans fear of death at the hands of those who were interred because of their ancestry swear to enslave, maim and kill in its during WWII. Thus the Koran should be name. treated with deference lest we repeat the sins of the past by discriminating against My view would be different if there was an everyone who praises it regardless of outcry by the billions of supposedly whether or not that praise is recognized peaceful Muslims who oppose the through peaceful or violent means. hijacking of their religion; but there isn’t. Unfortunately for Page that analogy For these reasons I discuss we should doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The oppose the attempt to silence those who Koran isn’t a person and banning its use in die or live in dhimmitude by legitimizing a ceremony is not a mark of blanket the use of the Koran in a state sponsored intolerance or racism. ceremony.
Islam and the Western Media http://www.islamfortoday.com/media.htm
Article posted on: IslamForToday.com promoting the theology of Islam
For Westerners seeking a knowledge and understanding of Islam.
A guide to the religion of Islam, Muslim history and civilizations, the rights of women in Islam, Islam in the West and around the world today plus Muslim schools and family life.
Stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam in the media are rooted in prejudice, and ignorance, says Bassil Akel.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. Nevertheless, the West has many stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam that are due to the media, prejudice, and ignorance. Islam is often looked upon as a "extremist", "terrorist", or "fundamental" religion. Many people hate Islam and do not want to acknowledge its true teachings. In many cases, the media’s reports about Islam are incorrect due to ignorance. This is one of the reasons why the West often hates Islam. In contrast to what many Westerners think of Islam, Islam is a peaceful religion, which does not promote any forms of uncalled for fighting or "terrorist" actions.
Stereotypes about Islam are not new to Western culture. Problems can be traced back 1400 years. At that time, Islam and Christianity were involved in the Crusades in the 1100’s and in the Ottoman and Moorish control in Europe. Islam spread quickly to the West, and started to threaten the position of the Christian Church and the ruling class. The Western elites, mainly the governments and the churches, then became highly involved in seeing that negative images were presented about Islam. As a result, not only were battles fought against Islam, but also a war of words was initiated to make sure that Islam would not have any converts or sympathizers in the West. These kinds of actions and feelings that the West had long ago still seem to be the case in the West today (Hassan 1).
Today, the West, with little or no understanding of Islamic history, has identified a new enemy, "a new demon that has replaced the Red menace of the Cold war, i.e., radical Islam" (Agha 6). This "radical Islam", a stereotype common to Western thought, portrays Muslims as fundamentalists or potential terrorists. Some of these ideas that the Western people have about Islam are due to the mass media of the West. Reporters who cover the Muslim world often know very little details about it. The media then develops a distorted image of Islam that Western culture adopts (Agha 2).
A major factor which contributes to Islamic stereotyping in the West is due to the media’s ignorance of selecting their words that describe Muslims. Some common names heard or seen in the news about Muslims are "extremist" or "terrorist". These words are misleading and are mainly anti-Islamic. The media rarely uses more neutral terms such as "revivalist" or "progressives" (Hassan 2).
The Western media also creates the idea that Muslims are "returning" to Islam. This is not true in most cases, because most Muslims have never left Islam in the first place. Islam has always been a big part of their lives. A more accurate and just way to describe this idea is to say that there is a revival of Islam and it is becoming more and more influential to everyone (Hassan 2).
Adding to the fact that the media creates inaccurate ideas about Islam, the Western media is also very influential to its audiences in making negative Islamic stereotypes, such as the assertion that all Muslims are fundamentalists. The term "fundamentalist" is actually a term that is interpreted by the media. A fundamentalist, in fact, only represents a normal Muslim who follows his or her religion. Fundamentalism means an attitude, an effort, or a movement that an ideology, group, or religion tries to promote in its fundamental beliefs. The "fundamental" beliefs of a Muslim is to believe in only one God (Allah) and the Prophet Mohammed is His messenger (PBUH), pray five times a day, fast the month of Ramadan, give alms to the poor, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. This means that all Muslims are fundamentalists if they believe in their own religion’s fundamentals. Although the media is uncomfortable with religious groups, it focuses heavily on "Islamic fundamentalism". A majority of the media’s reports that talk about Islamic fundamentalism usually describes most Muslims as extremists. This shows how the media is ignorant, because Islam specifically prohibits any forms of extremism. The Prophet Mohammed said, "Those persons who go to extremes (in practicing their religion) were cursed (by God)". The media most often portrays Muslim "fundamentalists" prostrating themselves before God in prayer. For example, in the October 4 issue of Time, Muslims soldiers were shown performing prayers with guns. The caption on the bottom of the picture said, "Guns and prayer go together in the fundamentalist battle". The part that the reporters omitted or failed to state was that the Muslim soldiers were praying on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Common sense of the situation meant that the soldiers had to remain armed at all times in case of an ambush at any time. This is a clear example of the media’s biased and inaccurate reporting (Martinez 1, Ba-Yunus 1).
With regard to the soldiers, another great misconception that exists is the truth about Jihad or "holy war" in Islam. The ideas of war and violence have become related to the Islamic religion from the media. Jihad is so often apparent in the news because the media thinks it is Islam’s justification for war and violence. The Quran (Muslim Holy Book) says "Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah (God) does not love aggression". A Muslim is permitted to take up arms only as an act of self-defense. A Muslim has the right to defend his life, and his property (Martinez 1, Hassan 4).
Jihad literally means "The struggle in the path of God", or "holy war". However, the Western media often abuses the meaning of jihad by referring to it as a holy war where Muslims unreasonably kill non-believers. But the fact is, is that jihad can mean a numbers of things that a Muslim does for the sake of God. Rarely has the Western media used this kind of a definition in their reports. The way the media represents jihad is wrong. The media often takes the word "jihad" out of context to propagate negative views on Islam. A student striving for top grades, individuals pursuing for equality and justice for all people, honoring your parents, a mother giving birth to a child, eating, and even simply sleeping can all be considered jihad (Martinez 1, Hassan 4).
The association of Islam and violence is a common misconception that the general Western public has developed about Islam. An example of this kind of misconception is that the Western media and some historians often say that Islam was a religion spread by the sword, meaning that Muslims went from one end of the world to the other forcing people to either convert or die. Islam spread by people learning about it and some by holy wars, but they did not force people to convert or die. Since a majority of the American public only get their information about Islam through the media, they believe this wrong idea. The media’s reports about Arab or "Islamic" events, such as the Gulf War, are often misunderstood. The media usually fails to give background information about these Islamic events that it reports on. The media infrequently distinguishes between the religion Islam and the political affairs that occur in most Islamic countries. For instance, what Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, did in the Gulf War was not Islamic and totally wrong (to attack other people for no reason, especially Muslims). But the media still makes reports about Islam and how Islam is made of war-crazed people. For example, to help put things into perspective, Hitler was a person of the Christian faith. This does not mean that all of his actions were consistent with the Christian beliefs. Likewise, Saddam Hussein is of the Islamic faith, but all of his actions do not necessarily represent Islam. So you can see that the media’s reports about "war-crazed Muslims" are incorrect. The notion of associating of Islam and Muslims with the terms Arabs and Middle East are in fact misleading. Arabs only account for 18% of the Muslim population across the world (Hassan 1-2, Washington 1).
Aside from the fact that the media misrepresents Islam because of ignorance, the media is also a profit-seeking organization which often seeks to create a false image of reality. Islam is often news of an unpleasant sort for the general public of the United States. Islam has often been presented as a menace or a threat to the West. These negative images do not correspond to Islam, but are the belief of certain sectors of a particular society. These prominent sectors can propagate negative images of Islam, which sometimes influences people’s views on Islam (Agha 3). The Western media actually poorly represents Islam. Most of these problems of poor representations come from poor language translations, the absence of developed news agencies with international networks and native reporters, and biased reporting by many Western reporters (Agha 3).
Some biased reports come from negative images that have happened in the Muslim world in the past like the hijacking of airplanes by Palestinians, the occupation of the United States Embassy by students in Tehran, the fact that there are no democratic governments in most Islamic countries, and the Gulf War. For most of these events, the media has misinterpreted and misrepresented them. The media sometimes unintentionally blows things out of proportion, sometimes because of biased feelings toward Muslims. However, many positive developments in the Muslims world rarely go noticed (Agha 3). Some inaccurate representations of Islam are often due to the media’s incorrect representations of Islamic countries, such as jihad, or Islam women’s rights. Waseem Sajjad, former Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan explains the situation of Islam and the media:
The Islamic world is poorly represented in the West in terms of press and media coverage. Not only are there just handfuls of news agencies in Muslim countries; there is the concern over the number of inexperienced reporters. Many reporters don’t understand the local cultures nor speak the language, leaving them with access to only those English or French speaking Westernized elites. Thus their representation is often a biased account of the political and social events from the point of view of the ruling minority in Muslim countries (Hassan 2).
A negative image of Islam is becoming more inherent in the Western culture from inaccurate media coverage. The media helps to make an image of Islam to unsuspecting audiences. The Western public often is misinformed about Muslims through the images on television, motion picture screens, magazines, radios, and comic strips in newspapers, which promote strong messages among their audiences. Western reporters often say that Muslims are terrorists. This becomes a common image to the general person that all Muslims are terrorists. Edward Said’s book, Covering Islam, talks about how the media and experts determine how we see the rest of the world. He says that: The term Islam as it is used today seems to mean one simple thing, but in fact is part fiction, part ideological label, part minimal designation of a religion called Islam . Today Islam is peculiarly traumatic news in the West. During the past few years, especially since events in Iran caught European and American attention so strongly, the media have therefore covered Islam: they have portrayed it, characterized it, analyzed it, given instant courses on it, and consequently they have made it known . But this coverage is misleadingly full, and a great deal in this energetic coverage is based on far from objective material. In many instances Islam has licensed not only patent inaccuracy, but also expressions of unrestrained ethnocentrism, cultural, and even racial hatred, deep yet paradoxically free-floating hostility (Agha 2) .
As well as creating inaccurate images about Islam, the Western media usually identifies Islam in Muslim conflicts. The media hardly points other religions out in their conflicts. For example, the news would say, "five Israelis may have been shot, but they were shot by five Muslims", instead of saying "Five Israelis were shot by five Palestinians". The media often reverses this action when a conflict is against Muslims, for example the news would usually say "Bosnians are being killed by Serbians", but instead rarely says, "Muslims are being killed by Christians"(Hassan 3). In addition to the media’s inaccurate representations about Islamic conflicts, human rights of women in Islam, such as women veiling and women authority, are big topics that Western media often confuses and misinterprets. The media often represents Islam as a male dominant religion where Muslim men have complete authority over all groups of people. The media often says that Islam discriminates against women, and that women have no power or authority. However, it is ironic of what the media represents, that the Prophet Mohammed was one the greatest reformers for women. In fact, Islam probably is the only religion that formally teaches women’s rights and finds ways to protect them. When Islam is practiced correctly, it becomes the best example of an equal gender society (Hassan 3).
As Islam came around, traditional pre-Islamic roles of women were replaced by new Islamic roles that women followed. Islam allowed women to have the right to be educated and the right to participate in political, economical, and social activities in their community. This created upward mobility in their communities. Women were also given the right to vote, something the U.S. did not allow until 1919. Women were given the right to inherit property and take charge of their possessions. While most of these rights are denied to Muslim women today as a result of cultural tradition, one should not associate this with Islam, because they do not correlate with it (Hassan 4). Islamic women wearing veils is a another commonly misunderstood concept in the West. Westerners often think that this is a harsh custom that Islam requires of women. Westerners often say these women have no freedom or dignity for wearing these veils. But in fact, these veils actuality help protect women and help them remain in chastity. In Islamic societies there are very few rape cases and AIDS victims as opposed to the Western societies, were there are thousands of rape cases and AIDS infected victims a year. But in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, women are forced to wear abbayyas (floor length veils). Such excessive forms of these kinds of dress are not mentioned in Islam. Islam requires women to wear a veil for their own safety, but if a woman chooses not to wear it, it is her choice and it is between her and her God. God will do anything He wants to her in this world and the after (Hassan 5).
Islamic women are indeed supposed to be granted these rights, but the media often fails to inform its audiences about this fact. The media also fails to report that most of the Islamic countries have a high illiteracy rate. This means that it is "virtually impossible for many Muslim women to challenge cultural male authority when the women themselves do not know the difference between village customs and actual Islamic law". The Western media would be able to better represent women’s issues in Islamic countries if they identified how and why governments have limited women’s rights that are guaranteed to them by the Quran (Muslim Holy Book). Most so-called Islamic countries such as Syria are corrupt (according to Islam) in their religion and should be addressed in the media’s reports. But instead "the media falsely portrays Muslim women as victims of a harsh and suppressive religion". While the media is so concerned about negative and discriminatory images about Islamic women, it fails to remind their audiences that there are three Islamic countries (Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey) that have had female heads of states. In contrast, most Westerns nations such as the United States, "who condemn Islamic countries for their oppression of women, have yet to see a non-white, male president, let alone a female" (Hassan 5-6).
With regard to Islamic women’s rights, Islam is also a hot topic of Western governments. Western powers do not usually easily tolerate Islamic movements or governments. One main reason is that in an Islamic government, in contrast to Western governments, there is no separation of church and state. Judith Miller states in her book Challenge of Radical Islam, "that anyone who believes in universal human rights, democratic governments, political tolerance, and peace between the Arabs and the Israelis cannot be complacent about the growing strength of Islamic militant movements in most Middle Eastern countries". Miller says that the Western governments should oppose these kind of Islamic movements. This statement shows one Western’s views about how the West opposes Islamic movements (Agha 6, Emerson 2).
Observers often say that the goal of Islamic fundamentalism is to wage a holy war against the West. These observers believe the idea that Islamic leaders only wanting the redress legitimate political grievances is totally nonsense. They think that even if Israel or any other opposing regime in the Middle East would disappear, "the appetite of the Islamic fundamentalists would only have been whetted". These ideas are false and also misleading. (Agha 7).
The Western media often portrays Islam as a "militant Islam" or a "fundamental Islam" threat to the West. Edward Said states that:
For the general public in America and Europe today, Islam is "news" of a particularly unpleasant sort. The media, the government, the geopolitical strategists, and although they are marginal to the culture at large - the academic experts on Islam are all in concert: Islam is a threat to Western civilization. Now this is by no means the same as saying that only derogatory or racist caricatures of Islam are to be found in the West...What I am saying is that negative images of Islam are very much more prevalent than any others, and that such images correspond, not to what Islam "is"...but to what prominent sectors of a particular society take it to be: Those sectors have the power and the will to propagate that particular image of Islam, and this image therefore becomes more prevalent, more present, than all others (Muzaffer 1).
John L. Esposito’s book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, states the question, is Islam a threat to the West? He tells us that the answer lies in the West’s views. He says that if the Western powers continue to defend the unjust status of the Middle East in the name of an illusory or fleeting stability, Islam will be a threat. "But if the Western powers begin to appreciate the legitimacy of grievances in the Middle East, the West and Islamic movements will get along peacefully" (Agha 7).
With the Western media’s spotlight and some Western governmental attitudes, the West is a place where Islam is a name of negativity. The Western media has contributed a great deal to this negative image of Islam. The media often misrepresents and inaccurately explains Islam and its manifestations. Sometimes the media seems to be biased against Islam. When the media distorts the image of Islam, the general public tend to believe it, because the media is a major source of information that the public gets about Islam. This ignorance that the West accumulates from the media leads them into making stereotypes about Islam and associating all Muslims and Arabs together. The West often times views Islam as "fundamental" "extremist" or "discriminatory", but all of these terms have be manipulated, purposely because of biased feelings and accidentally because of ignorance, by the media to present a negative image about Islam. Islam is actually a peaceful and fair religion that most often does not correspond to the media’s reports. As Islam grows more and more in the West, Westerners will eventually learn the truth about Islam and find out that these negative stereotypes are incorrect. It is possible that Islam will become one of the biggest religions in the United States. As more people follow Islam, the media will start to learn about it, understand it, and report about it in positive ways. As long as the Westerners are educated about Islam, they will probably learn to accept it as well. Bibliography
Agha, Dr. Olfat Hassan. http://bertie.la.utexas.edu/research/mena/acpss/english/ekuras/ ek25.html#Heading5. Islamic Fundamentalism and Its Image in the Western Media.
Ba-Yunus, Ilyas. http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/myth.html. The Myth of Islamic Fundamentalism.
Emerson, Steven. The Other Fundamentalist. New Republic. June 12, 1995.
Hassan, Anser. http://psirus.sfsu.edu/IntRel/IRJournal/sp95/hassan.html . Invitation to Islam: Islamic Stereotypes in Western Mass Media.
Martinez, Pricilia. http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfayiz/media.htm. Muslim Culture, Religion Misrepresented by Media.
Muzaffer, Dr. Chandra. http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn/misc2.htm#top. Dominant Western Perception of Islam and The Muslims. Washington, DC. http://www.twf.org/Releases/Fears.html. Why The West Fears Islam: The Enemy Within.
RELIGION DEMOGRAPHICS - CATHOLICS Chart & Map below online at: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html
Top 10 Nations with Most Catholics Number Perce of Nation nt baptized Catholics 86.50 134,818,00 Brazil % 0 Mexico 95.30 86,305,000 ~61,000,0 USA 26.00 00 Philippin 83.60 58,735,000 es 97.20 Italy 55,599,000 % France 82.10 47,773,000 Spain 94.20 36,956,000 Poland 95.40 36,835,000 Colombia 91.90 32,260,000 Argentin 90.70 31,546,000 a Germany 34.80 28,403,000 Online: The List of the World’s Largest Religious Communities http://www.adherents.com/largecom/
Television hopes to help viewers take part in Vatican ritual
Pictures to tell the story as 2 billion worldwide see funeral at St. Peter's
By David Zurawik Sun Television Critic
Published April 7 2005
At dawn tomorrow, as networks and 24-hour cable channels point their cameras and microphones at Pope John Paul II's funeral, an estimated 2 billion television viewers from around the globe will not hear much color commentary, many voice- overs or chatter from the newscasters. Instead, producers say, they are urging their anchors and correspondents to stay out of the way, allowing the solemnity and magnitude of the occasion to prevail. Television's marching orders are clear: Tomorrow's coverage must not only tell viewers the news from Rome, it must allow room for the rich and ancient ritual of the Roman Catholic Church to make viewers feel as if they are part of the congregation inside St. Peter's Basilica for the funeral Mass.
Words unnecessary
"I believe it will be rare to hear the voice of an anchor or correspondent during any of the funeral ceremonies," CNN anchorman Bill Hemmer said from Rome yesterday. "I believe this story is so rich with pictures, and it will be so rich with sound emanating from St. Peter's Basilica - and then St. Peter's Square when his body is brought back out - that words from people like us are not necessary at those moments. And I think as a broadcaster, it's your responsibility to recognize those moments and not interfere."
Jonathan Klein, president of CNN, said such moments can offer viewers a compelling sense of belonging to a community brought together by television: "There's a yearning on the part of audiences everywhere for connection with one another. That is in large part what's behind the rise of the Internet. But television is the most connective medium - better than the Internet - because it provides not only information but also emotion. When you hear the chanting in Vatican City, you're transported there emotionally."
Some news executives described the thinking behind such coverage as the opposite of conventional wisdom on most major news stories. Instead of bringing the story to viewers in their homes, "What we're trying to do is bring the viewer to the event," said Marcy McGinnis, senior vice president for news coverage at CBS.
"I recently talked to my mother, who is in her 80s and loves live news events," McGinnis said yesterday. "And she said she was supposed to go out to lunch with her friends the other day, but didn't because she wanted to see them carry the pope's body through the square to St. Peter's Basilica. 'I was just mesmerized by it. I felt like I was there. I love being part of history,' my mother said. And I think she is quite typical of viewers who want to actually be there, but can't - so we help them be there on these kinds of special events."
A sense of being there
Religion and media analysts described that sense of being "there" and feeling "mesmerized" as indications of television's inherent capacity to embrace and record ritual and then expand its sacred sense of time and space exponentially through TV satellite technology to a global audience of billions. "The power of television is to make people in disparate locations feel as if they are one with the spectacle that they are seeing in front of them," said Diane Winston, Knight chair in religion and media at the University of Southern California. "As the camera works to take viewers into close-up proximity of the actual ritual, for people who are believers there is a real sense of being a member of that congregation in St. Peter's. You have a ringside seat."
Winston compared the experience that some viewers will have tomorrow to the one had by many during the first wedding of Prince Charles: "It's not unlike Diana's wedding, where they were sitting inside the church where she was married. And we all knew what she looked like and what her dress was like and how she walked down the aisle. Just as people felt they were 'there' at that event, and were 'mesmerized' or lost in the ritual of her wedding, I think people will feel as if they are participating in the pope's funeral.
"It's a very different kind of occasion," Winston said, "but it's one of those times when television really does work its magic and brings people together to share in a ceremony that has world importance."
Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a journalistic think tank in Florida, called the pope's funeral "a story that cannot be overcovered," due to the importance and stature of the man and the institution involved. But there is coverage, and then there is coverage, he said.
"There are two different ways in which journalism functions," Clark said. "One way is to give us information - to point us to an event. The other function of journalism is to give us not information, but to give us experience. ... When they're broadcasting these ceremonies in Rome, they will not be pointing us there, they will be putting us there. They will be transporting us to another place ... if they do it right."=
Overflow crowd for Pope John Paul II funeral in Rome
Spanish lessons How did Spain, a country with a long Catholic tradition, manage to implement marriage equality? A year after same-sex weddings became legal, an on-the-ground analysis of how it happened—and what Americans can learn.
By Chris Rovzar
From The Advocate January 17, 2007
Last fall a Catholic priest invited me to my very first same-sex wedding. I was thrilled. The wedding was between an Episcopal deacon and his long-term boyfriend. The rites were Christian with the priest presiding. Sound unorthodox? What if I told you the priest was openly gay? And sexually active? And that he identifies as a bear?
¡Hola y bienvenidos! to gay Spain, where the citizens have been struggling to reconcile their country’s Christian underpinnings with a liberal attitude toward gay rights ever since same-sex marriage became legal over a year ago. On June 30, 2005, you were probably as surprised as I was when the Spanish government under President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, a Socialist, granted equal marriage rights to gays. After all, the country has a long Roman Catholic tradition, with 80% of its people at least nominally a Friend of Benedict, and homosexuality itself became legal only in 1978. And hello, Spanish Inquisition, anyone?
Yet somehow Spain beat the United States to the altar and allowed all its citizens to marry—which as of late 2006 included more than 4,000 gay couples. Nowadays marriage equality has dropped from the headlines (two thirds of voters supported it anyway). In the capital city of Madrid, one in 10 marriages are between members of the same sex. The city’s mayor, a member of the right-wing People’s Party, even performed the nuptials of one of his gay deputies. Confusing? I certainly thought so. So in September I did what any young gay journalist with a temporary lease (and no romantic prospects) would do: I moved to Spain to figure it out.
On the surface Spain is exactly the country you expect it to be. The people have a strong cultural bond with Catholicism, and their festivals explode with as much color and vigor as ever. During Holy Week, men still parade down the streets in brilliantly colored robes and those tall slightly creepy fabric hoods. On feast days, spectacularly bejeweled icons of the Virgin Mary are carried through the streets, and in Europe, Spain’s celebrations before Lent are surpassed only by Italy’s. During the Christmas season, as I am writing this story, Madrid’s wide boulevards have turned into festivals of lights, mangers, and crushes of humanity.
But I learned that underneath this facade lies a much more complicated relationship between religion, politics, and society. All the color and ceremony is what some call “Catholicism of rhythm.” That is, people celebrate because they always have, not out of a religious obligation. Since marriage between members of the same sex was legalized, Pope Benedict XVI has railed repeatedly against the Spanish government. Same-sex “pseudomarriage,” based on “a love that is weak,” is the “greatest threat ever” that the church has faced, he has said on various occasions. But his remarks fall largely on deaf ears. Spaniards remember all too well what happened the last time they allowed the Catholic Church to order them around. CATHOLICS & THE MEDIA
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) http://www.usccb.org/movies/
The Office for Film and Broadcasting is responsible for reviewing and rating theatrical motion pictures, previewing and evaluating television programming as well as providing the Catholic public with information about the role of the entertainment and news media in influencing societal and personal values.
In recognition of the importance of the videocassette player in the American home, the Office has prepared a volume of capsule reviews assessing the moral and entertainment values of more than 8,000 movies available on television or video. The office also sponsored a "Faith on Film" festival to commemorate the jubilee.
2005 Review of the movie: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN http://www.usccb.org/movies/b/brokebackmountain.shtml
Over-the-years love story between two emotionally fragile cowboys (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) who begin an intimate relationship during a solitary sheepherding assignment. Though shortly after, they try to go their separate ways, with one marrying his fiancee (Michelle Williams) and the other a former rodeo queen (Anne Hathaway), they continue to be drawn to each other.
Director Ang Lee's well-crafted film, which is superbly acted, was adapted from a New Yorker short story by Pulitzer Prize-winner Annie Proulx. It treats the subject matter -- which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles -- with discretion. tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two short male sex scenes without nudity, two brief heterosexual encounters with upper female nudity, shadowy rear nudity, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, irreligious remarks, alcohol and brief drug use, fleeting violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, some fisticuffs, brief domestic violence. O -- morally offensive. (R) 2005 Full Review
"Brokeback Mountain" (Focus), the much publicized "gay cowboy love story" adapted from a New Yorker magazine piece by Pulitzer Prize-winner Annie Proulx, turns out to be a serious contemplation on loneliness and connection.
The protagonists are ranch hands, both of whom are quick to reject the idea that they are homosexual after their first encounter. And the audience may well wonder why these two initiate a relationship in the first place, especially as it is so contrary to what they themselves must consider acceptable. The film, if never quite giving an outright answer, explores the complexity of an alliance marked as much by the pain, as well as the emotional support, they give each other.
The story revolves around two scarred souls: Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) who share a sheepherding assignment on a mountain in Signal, Wyo., in 1963. Ennis is a man of few words; Jack is more open and inviting.
Their friendship manages to grow despite Ennis' taciturn manner. At first, it's only Jack who, against legal employment rules, has to spend the night up the mountain near the sheep (with Ennis down in the camp), but they come to realize it is more practical to keep watch in tandem.
Ennis resolutely insists he'll sleep outdoors, but the cold drives him into Jack's tent, where the latter precipitates a sexual act. In the morning, both are too embarrassed to talk about the incident. “You know, I ain’t queer,” asserts Ennis. “Me neither,” agrees Jack.
But some kind of bond has formed. The following night, a short scene in the tent seems to confirm their attraction to one another, physically as well as emotionally.
Later, some outdoor wrestling is observed by their boss, the unsympathetic rancher Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid), who watches them with a knowing eye, as he will let Jack know later in the film.
At the end of the season, they come down from the mountain, and dismissing what transpired as a "one-shot deal," go their separate ways. Ennis is engaged to Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend), and they soon wed.
Jack, for his part, makes a tentative stab at the rodeo circuit and is shown talking up a cowboy in a bar, but eventually he meets former rodeo queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway) and they marry. Both men have children. One of Ennis's daughters (Kate Mara) will play a significant role at important junctures in his life.
Time goes by, and Jack sends a postcard to Ennis informing him he's coming to town, and suggesting they meet. When Jack finally drives up, the normally inexpressive Ennis rushes out to meet him. They embrace passionately, not knowing that Alma is sadly viewing them from behind the screen door. She says nothing, but understands all.
The men bolt, with Ennis telling Alma it will be a late night. The next day, Ennis announces that he and Jack are going fishing, and Alma is left behind in sorrow and confusion.
On the trip, Jack proposes that they chuck their families and buy a ranch, but for Ennis -- who as a child was made by his father to witness the aftermath of a hate-crime murder of two rancher neighbors who had lived together -- this is unthinkable.
Thereafter, Ennis and Jack meet several times a year for these “fishing” trips. (No explicit sexual activity is shown from this point on.) Lureen, like Alma, subconsciously senses the significance of these excursions, but retreats into her own business affairs. Throughout, it is implied, when Ennis’s responsibilities keep him from seeing Jack, the latter searches for satisfaction elsewhere, adding an element of differentiation between the two men.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).
As a result, Ennis and Jack’s physical relationship cannot be condoned. Of course, just as offensive from a Catholic perspective is the adulterous nature of their affair. And, in this regard, the film doesn't whitewash the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families, showing how selfish their trysts are, particularly when a befuddled Alma is left alone with the children. Both women are played with tremendous sympathy, but especially Alma.
What gives the film its power is the vividness with which it tells the story of an unresolved (albeit objectively immoral) relationship, which has a crushing impact on the two men and on all who are involved with them and which, it should be noted, ends in tragedy.
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana's screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx's (very short) short story, which won a National Magazine Award. They’ve expanded it while remaining true to the source.
Ang Lee directs with a sure sense of time and place and he doesn’t dwell on the carnal interaction between the two men. Except for the initial scene in the tent and brief sexual encounters between the men and their (fleetingly bare-breasted) wives, there's no sexually related nudity at all. Some outdoor shots of the men washing and skinny- dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.
The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the seemingly less nuanced Jack, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from "The Princess Diaries," giving her most mature work to date) are very fine. Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children -- who give the film its artful substance.
However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.
The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two short male sex scenes without nudity, two brief heterosexual encounters with upper female nudity, shadowy rear nudity, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, irreligious remarks, alcohol and brief drug use, fleeting violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, some fisticuffs and brief domestic violence. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted.
.
The classifications are as follows:
A-I -- general patronage; A-II -- adults and adolescents; A-III -- adults; L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV. O -- morally offensive.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
2004 Review of the movie: PASSION OF THE CHRIST Movie Website: http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.htm
Unflinching dramatization of the final agonizing hours of the earthly life of Jesus Christ (Jim Caviezel), from the Garden of Gethsemane to his crucifixion and resurrection, intercut with flashbacks to his childhood and public ministry. Although the film's brutality poignantly conveys the depth of Christ's love by showing him freely enduring such extreme agony for the redemption of all sinners, the graphic nature of the raw visuals is played to diminishing returns. Following the basic outline of the Gospel Passion narratives, director Mel Gibson embroiders his interpretive retelling of Scripture with extrabiblical sources as well as his own imagination, to craft an at times profoundly moving movie which succeeds in stripping Christ's sacrificial suffering of its Sunday school sugar-coating. While it is the film's assertion that responsibility for Christ's torture and death rests squarely with the Roman authorities, and away from the collective Jewish populace, the movie presents a historically skewed depiction of the Temple elite's sway with their imperial overlords. Subtitles. Gory scenes of torture and crucifixion, a suicide and some frightening images. A-III -- adults. (R) 2004
Full Review
"The Passion of the Christ" (Newmarket) is an uncompromising interpretive dramatization of the final 12 hours of Jesus' earthly life. Unflinching in its brutality and penetrating in its iconography of God's supreme love for humanity, the film will mean different things to people of diverse backgrounds. Co-writer, producer and director Mel Gibson has undoubtedly created one of the most anticipated and controversial films of recent times. Like other films on Christ's life, "The Passion" does not simply translate a single Gospel narrative onto the screen. Rather it is a composite of the Passion narratives in the four Gospels embroidered with non-scriptural traditions as well as the imaginative inspiration of the filmmaker. The result is a deeply personal work of devotional art - a moving Stations of the Cross, so to speak.
However, by choosing to narrow his focus almost exclusively to the Passion of Christ, Gibson has, perhaps, muted Christ's teachings, making it difficult for viewers unfamiliar with the New Testament and the era's historical milieu to contextualize the circumstances leading up to Jesus' arrest. And though, for Christians, the Passion is the central event in the history of salvation, the "how" of Christ's death is lingered on at the expense of the "why?"
The film employs a visceral, undiluted realism in its retelling of the passion, eschewing Sunday School delicacy in favor of in-your-face rawness that is much too intense for children. That notwithstanding, the movie is an artistic achievement in terms of its textured cinematography, haunting atmospherics, lyrical editing, detailed production design and soulful score. It loses nothing by using the languages of the time, Aramaic and Latin, as the actors' expressions transcend words, saying as much - if not more than - the English subtitles.
The film opens with a distraught Jesus (Jim Caviezel) facing down evil, personified as an androgynous being (played by Rosalinda Celentano), in the mist shrouded garden of Gethsemane and progresses to his death on the cross, followed by a fleeting, but poetically economic, resurrection coda. Flashbacks of his public ministry and home life in Nazareth with his mother, Mary (Maia Morgenstern) pepper the action, filling in some of the narrative blanks.
Each flashback in the film is a welcome respite from the near incessant bloodletting, but more importantly for how it conveys Jesus' core message of God's boundless love for humanity, a love that does not spare his son death on the cross so that we might have eternal life. More of these flashbacks would have been helpful in fleshing out the life and teachings of Jesus. Concerning the issue of anti-Semitism, the Jewish people are at no time blamed collectively for Jesus' death; rather Christ himself freely embraces his destiny, stating clearly "No one takes it (my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:18). By extension, Gibson's film suggests that all humanity shares culpability for the crucifixion, a theological stance established by the movie's opening quotation from the prophet Isaiah which explains that Christ was "crushed for our transgressions."
Catholics viewing the film should recall the teachings of the Second Vatican Council's decree, "Nostra Aetate," which affirms that, "though Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ, neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion."
Overall, the film presents Jews in much the same way as any other group - a mix of vice and virtue, good and bad. Yet while the larger Jewish community is shown to hold diverse opinions concerning Christ's fate - exemplified by the cacophony of taunts and tears along the Via Dolorosa - it fails to reflect the wider political nuances of first- century Judea. The scene of the stock frenzied mob uniformly calling for Christ's crucifixion in Pilate's courtyard is problematic, though once Christ begins his laborious way of the cross, Jewish individuals emerge from the crowd to extend kindness - including Veronica wiping his face and Simon of Cyrene helping carry the cross, as a chorus of weeping women lament from the sidelines.
However, the most visually distinctive representatives of Jewish authority - the High Priest Caiphas (Matia Sbragia) and those in the Sanhedrin aligned with him – do come across as almost monolithically malevolent. Caiphas is portrayed as adamant and unmerciful and his influence on Pilate is exaggerated. Conversely, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov) is almost gentle with Jesus, even offering his prisoner a drink. This overly sympathetic portrayal of the procurator as a vacillating, conflicted and world- weary backwater bureaucrat, averse to unnecessary roughness and easily coerced by both his Jewish subjects and his conscience-burdened wife, does not mesh with the Pilate of history remembered by the ancient historians as a ruthless and inflexible brute responsible for ordering the execution of hundreds of Jewish rabble-rousers without hesitation. However, while the members of Sanhedrin are painted in villainous shades, the film is abundantly clear that it is the Romans who are Christ's executioners (a fact corroborated by both the Nicene Creed and the writings of the Tacitus and Josephus).
The Roman soldiers are unimaginably -- even gleefully-- sadistic in flaying Jesus to within an inch of his life. "The Passion" is exceedingly graphic in its portrayal of the barbarities of Roman justice. According to Gibson, much of the visual grisliness of Christ's suffering sprung from his own personal meditations on the Passion. As depicted, the violence, while explicit and extreme, does not seem an end in itself. It is not the kind of violence made to look exciting, glamorized or without consequences. It attempts to convey the depths of salvific divine love. Nonetheless, viewers' justifiable reaction is to be repelled by such unremitting inhumanity. In the end, such savagery may be self-defeating in trying to capture the imagination of the everyday moviegoer.
In contrast to Jesus' physical agony is the emotional desolation seen in the figure of the Virgin Mary. When Mary utters, "When, how, where, will you choose to be delivered from this?" the viewer is pierced by the depth of Mary's understanding of Christ's divinity and her sublime acceptance of seeing her son suffer. It tears at one's heart to see Mary struggling to get close to Jesus as he walks through the winding, narrow streets carrying the cross. Seeing him suddenly fall, she is transported, along with the viewers, to Christ's childhood, to a time when she was able to scoop him up when he stumbled. When she finally reaches Jesus, and he is on the ground, crushed by the weight of the cross, it is he who comforts her with his words, "See, mother, I make all things new." Morgenstern's portrayal of Mary is beautifully rendered, never more so than in the Pieta-like tableau when Christ's body is laid in her arms.
The juxtaposition of the wounded and bleeding body of Christ on the cross with scenes of the Last Supper compellingly underscores how the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. Other indelible images include a derided Jesus faltering under the weight of the cross intercut with his earlier triumphant entry into Jerusalem and a single raindrop - a tear from heaven - heralding Christ's death. The power of the cross is also keenly conveyed. Jesus does not recoil from either the horrific scourging at the hands of the Roman soldiers or from carrying the burdensome cross. Instead, he declares his "heart is ready" and embraces the cross as if comforting a fallen sinner. These are truly moving and emotional points in the film. Cinematically, there are flaws as well as triumphs in Gibson's film, such as a recurring tendency to slip into the horror-genre conventions, including a scene of a guilt-wracked Judas being taunted by little boys whose faces turn into those of grotesque, macabre ghouls. And close-ups of Christ's scarred and mutilated body are truly horrible.
For those coming to the film without a faith perspective it may have little resonance. But for Christians, "The Passion of the Christ" is likely to arouse not only passionate opinions, but hopefully a deeper understanding of the drama of salvation and the magnitude of God's love and forgiveness. It is not about what men did to God, but what God endured for humanity. Subtitles.
Due to gory scenes of torture and crucifixion, a suicide and some frightening images, the USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-III - - adults. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R - restricted.
Unflinching dramatization of the final agonizing hours of the earthly life of Jesus Christ (Jim Caviezel), from the garden of Gethsemane to his crucifixion and resurrection, intercut with flashbacks to his childhood and public ministry. Although the film's brutality poignantly conveys the depth of Christ's love by showing him freely enduring such extreme agony for the redemption of all sinners, the graphic nature of the raw visuals is played to diminishing returns. Following the basic outline of the gospel passion narratives, director Mel Gibson embroiders his interpretive retelling of scripture with extra-biblical sources as well as his own imagination, to craft an at times profoundly moving movie which succeeds in stripping Christ's sacrificial suffering of its Sunday school sugar-coating. While it is the film's assertion that responsibility for Christ's torture and death rest squarely with the Roman authorities, and away from the collective Jewish populace, the movie presents a historically skewed depiction of the Temple elite's sway with their imperial overlords. Subtitles. Gory scenes of torture and crucifixion, a suicide and some frightening images. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-III -- adults. (R) 2004
January 18, 2007 From Advocate.com
Lutheran pastor's trial rekindles debates over gay clergy
A gay Lutheran pastor who announced a year ago that he had a steady relationship with another man will face disciplinary proceedings for violating church rules banning sex outside marriage. The Reverend Bradley Schmeling of St. John's, Atlanta's oldest Lutheran church, will face a disciplinary hearing on Friday structured much like a trial, where a committee of 12 members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will decide whether he can remain an ordained minister in the church.
Schmeling and his supporters say they hope his case will lead to changes in those rules, making the church more accepting of relationships involving its gay pastors. "I want people who have felt excluded by the church for their sexual orientation to know God loves them," Schmeling said in an interview with the Associated Press last weekend. "We've always been a church that emphasizes the unconditional love of God, so this policy runs counter to that."
Many mainline Protestant denominations in the United States, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion, have been struggling to resolve differences over homosexuality and gay clergy. The ELCA maintains it is simply following its own rules, which ban relationships outside marriage, even though they allow openly gay clergy.
Schmeling told both his bishop and congregation about his sexual orientation before he was chosen pastor in 2000. When told of the steady relationship, however, the bishop of the ELCA's southeastern synod did not celebrate. Instead, Bishop Ronald Warren asked the 44-year-old pastor to resign. When Schmeling refused, Warren started disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage, which the church defines as only between a man and woman. ELCA spokesman John Brooks said that if a single, heterosexual pastor told his bishop that he was in a relationship outside of marriage and he refused to repent, he likely would face similar disciplinary proceedings. When Warren announced in August that he was taking action against Schmeling, he said he would not comment until a verdict is rendered.
In 2005 delegates to an ELCA national meeting rejected a proposal to allow sexually active gay men and lesbians to be ordained as pastors if they were in committed, long- term relationships. Opponents, including Schmeling, say the policy discriminates against gay clergy by forcing them to refrain from sex, while heterosexuals only have to wait for marriage.
"ELCA says it welcomes GLBT people but that welcome stops at committed relationships," said Phil Soucy, spokesman of Lutherans Concerned, a group fighting for full inclusion of gays in the church.
Schmeling's disciplinary hearing, which will be closed to the public, is expected to run through the weekend. Afterward, the 12-person committee made up of both clergy and lay people, including two members chosen by Schmeling, will have a couple of weeks to decide whether to take action, which could include a suspension or removal from ordained ministry.
Schmeling's congregation does not even want to consider where that would land them. "We want Bradley to be our pastor, and we want to remain in ELCA," congregation president Laura Crawley said. "If he's removed from the roster, he'll continue as pastor."
While that could lead to disciplinary actions against St. John's, the married mother of two said she hopes the church will reform itself by understanding that "we want our pastors to live in the world with us." (Giovanna Dell'Orto, AP)