The Christians said they had been dismayed to see the inspiring prophet Jesus reduced to a mere victim.

Are they Christians then? The Lutheran minister in the group mentions that he is "predisposed" against the theology of atonement, calling it a "personal matter."

But this theology is central to Christianity and front and center part of the Jewish sacrificial system that was in force for thousands of years prior to Jesus' appearance. Without atonement, there is no relationship with God.

So, for the pastor who is predisposed against "atonement" I would say that I am predisposed against seeing him as a fellow believer. Only God knows a person's heart. Yet, we can know something about people through their words and actions and, at the very least, his words lead me to be skeptical.

Unfortunately, some people think they are Christians merely because they attend church on a periodic or regular basis. If I follow the same philosophy, then I can walk into a garage and call myself a car.

Let me also say just one other thing (in this comment ;-). The fact that these "Christians" had trouble seeing Jesus as the victim is THEIR problem, not the movie's problem. Yes, Jesus was a prophet, but he was also a priest and a king. Jesus' bloodline was both from Aaron and Judah, therefore, he had the bloodline both of the priestly line of Aaron and was also a descendent of the line of David.

So, while Jesus was prophet, priest, and king, his ultimate purpose for becoming human was to lay down all of that and, literally, to become a victim. He is the lamb that was slain, the blameless, sinless victim whose sacrifice atoned for the sins of all God's people.

I find that statement ironic too because, in Jesus' time, part of the reason why the Pharisees and Sadducees rejected him was the fact that he did not fit their expectation of Messiah. They wanted someone who was going to lead the Jews in an uprising that first free all of Israel from Roman rule, then make Israel preeminent among nations. Instead, Jesus preached peace, love, and forgiveness. Even worse, he told the religious leaders to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's. And then, even worse, he called the corrupt religious leaders of his day serpents, and vipers (a way of saying, you are evil), and described them as "whitewashed tombs," clean and serene on the outside, but full of death and decay on the inside.

And you wonder why they wanted him dead?

Thanks.

David

Wait, so priests are determined by bloodline? I had no idea it was a genetic thing.

I will preface this by saying I have not seen this film myself. From listening to the reviews, I must wonder whether or not this is a Gospel according to Mel. It would seem that a number of theologians took issue with the accuracy of the work, in that there appeared to be inconsistencies relative to the Gospels themselves.

I must say that I am predisposed not to like this movie, though I will probably go to see it. From what I have seen in the advertisements, one is invited to witness the torture and eventual execution of Jesus Christ, all of which is presented in gory detail together with some artistic license.

JR,

The priestly duties of old Israel during the times when the sacrificial system was still in place could only be performed by a certain group, the Levites. The Levites were the ones who followed Moses against their own people after the other Israelites had made a golden calf to worship as their new god.

Here is the passage:

Exodus 32:
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD , come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

From that time forward, the Levites were the only ones allowed to perform priestly duties for all of Israel, though, initially, God had wanted all of Israel to be eligible to take on priestly duties.

Hope that clarifies my earlier statement.

Thanks.

David

David, I am the Lutheran, although I am certainly not a minister - I am the one predisposed against "theology of atonement."

Roland,

Mel Gibson does say openly that he added in some things to try and fill out scenes in the movie. Are they accurate? Well, they are certainly not scriptural.

I expect the movie to have things that don't jibe perfectly with scripture. But, I think the main issue to focus on is whether or not those additions to the gospels invalidate what the scriptures say.

I don't know the answer to that question as I have yet to see the film myself, but I plan to this weekend and then I can see for myself.

Thanks. :-)

David

I am the one predisposed against "theology of atonement."

Eric,

Can I ask why? I'm curious because, as I said above, atonement is the heart of both Judaism and Christianity. If you don't believe in the need for atonement, then I would guess that you have little or no use for either of these faiths.

Thanks.

David

David, It's a matter of emphasis; Catholics and some Protestants emphasize atonement, others, including we Lutherans, emphasize forgiveness and salvation. Of course you must repent your sins, but this is a step toward salvation, not the focus.

Eric,

Perhaps I need to apologize then, because you and I might be talking about the same thing. When I read "atonement," I wasn't really thinking doctrinally. Instead, I was thinking of the use of this word referring to the need for atonement and then Jesus completed work of atonement on the cross.

So, I was referring to the fact that we are forgiven through Jesus' atoning work and are saved by faith, through grace, and not by works. Is that what you were referring to?

Thanks.

David

Yes, I was using the term in a doctrinal sense as the Greek Orthodox clergyman did in the story:

He and the other Christian clergy members agreed that the movie was based on a "theology of atonement" familiar to evangelicals, one that emphasizes Jesus' suffering and sacrifice over his resurrection.

I'm sitting across from the Sharper Image at Pioneer Square mall and Elvis just . . . . It must have been the sale.

I think the response, people considering the movie is good. The folks who made it were hoping it would reach their intended audience, but slip by under the radar otherwise. To have it hung out so everyone can consider the implications of "The Passion" is just desserts. It allows the OD, CTM and other religious conservatives opportunity to defend their interpretation, without letting it be the only interpretation.

But his resurrection - now that's something you don't see everyday.

I agree completely. I apologize for my confused rambling there. My bad!

David

I find it curious that one of the contributors should say that "as a lutheran" he is not "predisposed" towards the atonement. Surely an revelatory understanding of the atonement was one of the mainsprings of Luther's life and work as a reformer. Of course protestants are "familiar" with the theology of the atonement, but they are no less rooted in the theology of the resurrection, which, incidentally, is referred to even if not "covered" in the film. As a protestant, I am wholeheartedly committed to the theology of forgiveness and grace. That was precisely what the atonement was all about. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin". That is what our complacent, sense-orientated, feel-good, happy-clappy, sex-sodden world needs to be confronted with: that Jesus died for our sin, and that his death was not a painless matter. It cost Him a great deal of pain and suffering. That is why the film is so important. And that is why so many are going to be offended by it and dismiss it out of hand. It is the scandal of the cross relived. Many people though will be transformed as they see what the forgiveness of their sin cost the Son of God.

Have not been a practicing christian for thirty years though raised in the catholic church and spent eight years of education under the jesuits. My predilection is toward Buddhism.

So what I say here can be taken with more than the usual-sized grain of salt, and it's mere gut reaction. Have not seen Gibson's movie and probably won't: theologically, I'm turned off by "atonement" anything, though I can grasp the notion of paying out the last penny of pain for evil done so that evil may afterwards be fought on other terms.

Here's my pitch: why do I feel that those who cannot grasp what the violence is about in the crucifixion story are the same people who can't grasp what 9/11 is about? In both cases, I sense a need to simply avoid thinking about--taking in, readiness to recognize--that human evil is finally about literally and figuratively tearing people apart. Liberals don't like George Bush--yes, I feel that the controversy over this film is really a controversy over the Christian notion of evil, and that is what is buried in a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric--because he tells people that there is rampant evil in the world that wants them dead, and I can only wonder if the same types aren't the ones who can't, won't, absolutely refuse to take in the violence that Gibson is--reviews indicate--determined to force into their consciousness.

So my point is that Gibson's "Passion" is--by way of one of it's contemporary references--about 9/11 and destructive terrorism in general that wants nothing more than--that's right--tear people apart.

I can't speak for other people, but I am not coming from an avoidance of considering pain perspective at all. My family's history, as people of mixed race in America, has been rife with pain. The Cheraw Indians decimated by British invaders. The slaves torn from their homeland and dehumanized in America. The whites either oppressors themselves or scorned for refusing to fulfill their 'God-given' role of oppressor. My own life has been subject to the continual pain of being abused because of having melanin in my skin and a very good brain in my head -- two things that are not supposed to happen at same time. Sonny, as my grandpa would say, you don't know squat about experiencing pain. And, considering that you appear to be a far Right Winger, I'm sure you have caused plenty of it. If it is atonement you are interested in, start with yourself.

My take on all this whining about the pain of Christ, as I said previously, is displacement. If our attention is focused on the pain of a supernatural figure, we miss the pain humans cause humans every day and always have. What has, say Mel Gibson, done to have real world effect on anyone's pain? Nothing. Instead, people are supposed to applaud him for reviving a discredited notion that only Jews are responsible for the death of Christ.

I also find it ridiculous that Gibson is being held up as some kind of hero or role model. Heck, my family would not have been able to emigrate to Australia in 1968. That emigration, rooted in evil, is what started Gibson down the road to success.

When Mel Gibson begins addressing real world issues that are causing people pain, then he will have my ear on the topic. Until then, his big budget exercise in displacement is just that in my opinion.

Micheal McCanles

"...why do I feel that those who cannot grasp what the violence is about in the crucifixion story are the same people who can't grasp what 9/11 is about?"

Because you are so full of shit, your eyes are brown?

This is one of the most digusting attempts at psuedo-psycological analysis I've ever seen.

And your little aside about Buddhism doesn't fool me for a second.

YOU MUST TAKE US FOR IDIOTS.

'Liberals' refuse to see the evil that George Bush points out and are the same people that refuse to see the evil Mel Gibson trots out for profit?

Liberals can't 'grasp' what 'violence' is about in a friggin' Mel Gibson movie ALSO can't 'grasp' what 9/11 is about?

I speak for the many liberals who had friends who died on 9/11 and fully grasp what the fuck it's about.

I also speak for the many liberals who don't give a rat's ass to watch some artistic snuff film that aspires to be a massive propaganda effort for some right-wing, nut bar lunatic fringe of Catholicism.

I can't believe this thread isn't FILLED with people wanting to verbally pummel your worthless ass for suggesting such a load of shit.

*Fuck you. You have no shame.


*Note: Shark has vowed to avoid name-calling and fuck you's on Blogcritics, but this 'ringer' pushed me over the edge. Forgive me.

How can you accuse MG of ignoring other cases of human pain and suffering just because he chose to home in on the suffering Jesus experienced. Would you accuse a director who focused on the pain and rejection experienced by an AIDS sufferer in LA of thereby ignoring the plight of Angolan asylum seekers in the UK?

Christians aren't suggesting that Jesus had a monopoly on pain, but that by going through what he went through he was showing that God is not some transcendent super-human entity that warns and punishes but otherwise takes little or nothing to do with suffering humanity. Christians believe that the cross is God's stake (so to speak) in human suffering. Of course there need to be films and books denouncing all the forms of injustice that add to this suffering, wherever in the world it is happening. But it's perfectly legitimate to zoom in on the crucifixion. Especially as there is hope in it of a way out of the horror and misery that many thousands of people have to go through.

Roger, this isn't a Christian vs non-Christian thing. Many Christians are very concerned about the emphasis of the film. I think that is the point. Should the emphasis be the exquisite detail of the pain and suffering and those who inflicted it? It isn't a question of legitimacy - a filmmaker - especially one who finances his own film - can do whatever he wants. But was this a wasted opportunity?

Having seen the film, it would appear that the NYT handpicked clerics that they knew would give them the negative reactions that they wanted. I can understand all kinds of theological objections, but for any supposed believing Christian to say that they found this movie "tedious" is beyond me.

Shark, I'll at least somewhat defend Mr. McCanles. The main thing I left the theater thinking about was the ugly ways that people treat each other. In this case, it gets largely piled on to Jesus, but gets refracted out through others around him- notably Mary. In short, Jesus and the crucifixion story do make for a classic study on the nature of evil.

Reading your comments in #16, might I gently suggest that you're emoting rather than thinking.

It doesnt suprise me that a major motion picture about Jesus Christ would cause such a stir.I havent seen it yet, but definetly will.

Sheri, good point - how could it not, actually?

Diva- Here's yet another classic example of exactly the kind of cheap dishonesty that causes you to have zero credibility for anything that you write: people are supposed to applaud him for reviving a discredited notion that only Jews are responsible for the death of Christ.

That's not what's in the film, and you've GOT to have known better than that when you wrote those words. In the film, as in the Book, the Romans killed Christ. The film is consistent with the book. Gibson didn't make that up, nor did the Catholic church or any splinter group of Mr Gibson's affiliation.

Indeed, as to assigning blame, Gibson has famously made a point of it being his own hands driving the nail into Jesus' hands in the film- not those of a Jew.

But then, you don't care about little things like FACTS getting in the way of your points.

Also, it really looks particularly bad for you to complain about "all this whining about the pain of Christ." How would you like it if someone similarly mocked you for 'whining about the pain of black people' or some such?

Ok everybody I saw he movie last night and yes blood is spilt. After all if your flesh had had been castigated, pierced and ripped from your body you would bleed too. Was it gruesome? Yes. BUT it was nowhere near as bad as what really happened. WHY? Because in reality Jesus' face and body was so battered and swollen from the beating that he was unrecognizable when the sadists had finished their work.

So it is time to get over our fear and revulsion of the word blood. The fact is blood IS an important metaphor for the atonement of sin throughout both the old and new testaments. In the old it was the sacrifice of animal blood. In the new it is the shedding of the lamb of God's blood once and for all of mankind.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 23:30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

Mat 27:4 saying, I have sinned, betraying innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? You see to that.

Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

Mat 27:24 But when Pilate saw that it gained nothing, but rather that a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person. You see to it.

Mar 14:24 And He said to them, This is My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luk 11:50 so that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Luk 22:20 In the same way He took the cup, after having dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.

Luk 22:44 And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly. And His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus says to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.

Joh 6:54 Whoever partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

Joh 6:56 He who partakes of My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I in him.

Joh 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a lance, and instantly there came out blood and water.

Act 2:19 And I will give wonders in the heaven above, and miracles on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke.

Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and glorious Day of the Lord.

Act 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me.

In reality, I suspect any woman who has been in the company of the crude, misogynist, bigoted person thumping the Bible above probably had plenty of bruises to show for it. As for his obsession with blood, blood, blood (but only the blood of a supernatural figure, mind you) it is further reason to doubt his sanity, in my opinion. The amazing thing to me is that his blather is actually accepted as rational by some people.

As for anyone who wants to take moral instruction from Al Barger, that is definitely his or her perogative. Heck, get together with Barger and his pal David Yeagley and make it a threesome.

Don't personalize this Mac and obviously you didn't get the message. Please don't try and make me or Mel or anybody else the scapegoat because it won't fly. It is not my obsession that I am talking about and the point I am making should be painfully obvious. The blood of atonement is of major importance in the Bible and that is where the real issue is - not the movie.

You still haven't answered the question. If the movie was about a slave that was treated similarly would it have been criticized to the extent this movie has? It is a fair question and deserves an intelligent response.

Al, I don't know what Mr. McCanles has to do with anything, but what the fucker said is indefensible

The notion that a 'liberal can't understand the impact of evil, whether it's 9/11 or some other, is a cheap-ass low blow.

Carry on.

Am I the only reader on this thread who felt this is one of the most offensive things I've ever read?


Mr. "McCanles" said.

"...those who cannot grasp what the violence is about in the crucifixion story are the same people who can't grasp what 9/11 is about."

AND WHO WOULD THAT BE?

[people who] "...need to simply avoid thinking about that human evil is about literally and figuratively tearing people apart."

Who on earth doesn't understand what violence is?

"Liberals don't like George Bush..."

What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

"The controversy over this film is really a controversy over the Christian notion of evil, and that is what is buried in a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric..."

"I wonder if the same types aren't the ones who can't, won't, absolutely refuse to take in the violence that Gibson is determined to force into their consciousness."

I'm surprised that ANYONE of ANY political persuasion can sit back and read this without becoming angry. To use 3000 dead in New York City as a tool to bash 'liberals' is one of the most despicable acts I've ever seen. It degrades and totally disrespects the dead, the event, and anyone, liberal or conservative, who felt the horror for those people and our nation on that terrible day.

Al, I would expect you to condemn such crap. It's unfair and you know it. It's a low blow and you know it. It's way out of the bounds of decency and you know it.

I rarely get riled or 'emotional' as you call it, but to use 9/11 to show the heartlessness or ignorance of a political opponent is just too disrespectful to the memory of those who died that day.

Shark it appears that he is attempting to juxtapose two horrific acts to make a political point, albeit the point does escape me??? It does seem a rather insensitive thing to do and your righteous indignation over 9/11 is noted.

I would also point out I hope everybody understands why some people get so uppity having their religious or political beliefs mocked. All of us are probably guilty of being extra sensitive at times, not to minimize however your feelings on the matter.

shark, I was also dumbfounded by he said.

However I also think it's equally ignorant what Mac said (or always says...). BB brings up a good point (one which mac will probably disregard).

The suffering of Christ is paramount to the Christian faith, but the actions of the Jewish leaders have no effect on my opinions of Jews at any period in time. There have been bad leaders in every faith, every government, every nation, every family. Just because Pilate washed his hands of what he was doing doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for what he did.

My point exactly, Eric ;-)

Shark- I appreciate your sensitivities, and I might have come at it a bit differently than Mr. McCanles did.

Let's try to put politics out of it. I'm not after simply bashing anyone for being a "liberal," whatever that means. Let's try to leave partisan politics out of it.

What I think he was after would be the question of evil, which has had a new life since 9/11. It has become a common point of discussion of morality versus sociology.

It seems that some people will insist on rationalizing even the worst human behavior: See, we need to understand that terrorists hate us because of our foreign policy, because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or supported this and that bad regime. We need to be more sensitive to their cultural issues, blah, blah, blah. They're not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion.

Whereas at some point others of us will be more inclined to say simply that some people choose evil. They have hatred and wickedness in their hearts, and like to cause pain and suffering. They're just mean and hateful, and have to be put down like rabid dogs.

Leaving Mel Gibson and Christianity aside, I recommend the under appreciated movie The Good Son. The Culkin character was just plain wicked and evil. It wasn't because he had a tough life, or he was abused or impoverished. He just plain chose to be mean and hateful.

I'm not after simply bashing anyone for being a "liberal," whatever that means.

Bwahahahahahahhaha!

The needle on the Unintentional Comedy Scale is PINNED.

"...at some point others of us will be more inclined to say simply that some people choose evil. They have hatred and wickedness in their hearts, and like to cause pain and suffering. They're just mean and hateful, and have to be put down like rabid dogs."

Ah, but is that what Jesus would do?

"Ah, but is that what Jesus would do?"

Now where have I heard that before???

All too often from folks who support state-sanctioned killing (be it execution, preemptive invasions or war), bigotry of all sorts, and Dubya Bush. But not always.

Point remains, the Jesus I know of would not countenance putting anyone down like rabid dogs. He forgave his persecutors.

Hmmm. Al Barger is just plain evil. So . . . .

AL: "Shark, I appreciate your sensitivities, and I might have come at it a bit differently than Mr. McCanles did."

I'm wondering where "McCanales" ran off to. But I guess you can be a stand-in and present his potential arguments.

Here is your flawed, fucked up, barely disguised political logic:


* 9/11 gave new life to evil (FALSE: This is such a load of horse shit. Evil strikes liberal and conservative alike. Every day. Mothers, fathers, and children are kidnapped and murdered every fucking day in America. Someone is greeting 'evil' as we speak. It doesn't have to hit the Twin Towers for a lot of decent Americans to understand the impact and implications of evil. It was around a long time before that and will be around a long time after, and anyone who's lost a friend or family member to some random crime surely doesn't need your condescending lecture about the impact of evil.)

* some people will insist on rationalizing the worst human behavior (TRUE in some cases; very few, I would guess; definitely a minority)

YOUR EXAMPLE, AL? Some wimpy peace-love-flowers LIBERAL whose mouth you fill with the following words:

"See, we need to understand that terrorists hate us because of our foreign policy, because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or supported this and that bad regime. We need to be more sensitive to their cultural issues, blah, blah, blah."

Forgive me, AL "Let's try to leave partisan politics out of it" BARGER, but that sounds like a 'liberal' to me; and specifically, one type of 'liberal' response to 9/11. Or at least YOUR IDEA of the 'ideal' liberal response to an attack from Muslim nuts. (BTW: I heard a great many good, honorable conservatives on 9/12 asking "Why do they hate us?" Where are they in your hierarchy of tough guys?

* They're [people who 'rationalize evil behavior] not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion. (FALSE: your premises and false assumptions don't automatically lead to this ridiculous conclusion. Nice try, though.)

Here comes the pitch, totally irrelevant to "mccanles" point, btw:

"others of us will be more inclined to say that some people choose evil. They're just mean...and have to be put down like rabid dogs."

Which, I gather, implies that because you see evil 'clearly' and deal with it by killing, YOU'RE BETTER ABLE TO
"Appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion."???

AL, you're as full of shit as "McCanles"--- and I think you'd better ask him to return to fight his own battles. Your attempt at profundities and logic are a joke.

Now Diva, play nice.

Miss Natalie, Jesus forgave the people who killed him. Would he, however, say that you should just let people continue to roll in and kill your people and you shouldn't defend them or yourself?

On the other hand, I'm not a Christian, so I don't need to make Jesus fit my agenda. If your Jesus says that we shouldn't defend ourselves, then he's an idiot.

bhw- Glad I could entertain you- though the comedic effect is not entirely unintentional.

Goodness Shark, you're getting all hostile. I was TRYING not to be all accusatory and not paint all folks of liberal persuasions with a broad brush.

You're getting a little testy here. Perhaps you've been hanging around Diva too long. You need to play nice too.

It's not that 9/11 was the only evil act of the last many years. Just that it was the biggest thing in America, effected the most people, and sort of focused our national attention on some of this stuff.

You don't have to LIKE the Mel Gibson movie. You should appreciate that it is a powerful work of art. Perhaps you don't relate to the particular style though, or you just don't buy it personally. Totally cool.

You're heading rapidly toward being personally insulting with the "profundity" stuff, when I'm TRYING to play nice. I wouldn't call this stuff profound, but actually fairly basic. Even some pinkos understand that there's evil- though a lot of times their bearings on such things are so far off that they pick W for evil rather than Saddam. [Hey, I was TRYING to lay off, but you hadda push me.]

What's up with this ragging on Al stuff anyway? Diva says that you're my henchman or subordinate or mind numbed robot or something. You do do what I tell you!

Al, you chose to defend and/or elaborate on Mc-whatshisname's shameless attempt to equate liberals who don't 'understand' the evil of 9/11 to liberals who don't like Bush to liberals who don't appreciate The Passion.

It's a crock and you know it.

Say you're a codfish.

AL: "They [people who 'rationalize evil behavior] are not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion."

SHARK: "FALSE: your premises and false assumptions don't automatically lead to this ridiculous conclusion."

You can't be proud of this exchange.

I'm not sure what your beef is here. Some people are not inclined to look at the world in moral terms, but prefer different kinds of Skinnerian behaviorist explanations or post-religious humanism of other kinds. They're just not real likely to appreciate a moralistic religious movie.

YOU keep going on with the liberal thing. Yes, a lot of these people would identify as political liberals, but some of these folks might be apolitical or something. I was trying to stay away from just slamming "liberals." Some perfectly good liberal Democrats understand these things just fine.

Would you settle for my admitting to being a trout mask replica?