I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
February 01, 2005
Synthetic rage II
The fact that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ did not receive any nominations in the major categories for Academy Awards (it did receive nominations for makeup, cinematography, and original score) has created a fresh gusher of synthetic rage.
The inevitable press conferences are being held with the usual suspects denouncing this omission as indicators of the evil-mindedness of people in the film industry (“There’s no question that bigotry and prejudice rank among the liberal elite of Hollywood� - Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition) and alleging that this was another example of how Christians are under siege in the US (“It is well known that the Hollywood community has been anti-Christian for many years.� -Tim Wildmon, American Family Association), which is a curious charge to make in what is arguably the most overtly Christian country in the world, where its leaders (particularly the current president) often make public professions of their faith.
People, people, people, let’s get a grip. We are talking about the Oscars, for goodness’ sake, that annual orgy of self-congratulation by the film world, where success is as much dependent on talent and quality as it is on politicking, schmoozing, money, advertising, reputation, and boot-licking and back-stabbing skills. Why would anyone other than those actually involved in the making of a film much care whether it won awards or not?
And where were all these protesters some years ago when the obviously best film of ALL time, one that featured religion, political intrigue, the Sermon on the Mount, crucifixions, stonings, Roman soldiers, and a Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment, was not nominated for an Oscar in even a single category? Yes, I am talking about Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
The many admirers of this landmark film bore this travesty of justice with equanimity. We did not feign outrage. We did not hold press conferences to protest. We were stoic, knowing that history would give Life of Brian the recognition it deserved long after pretenders to greatness like Citizen Kane had faded into obscurity. We are still waiting patiently…
Trackbacks
Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/singham/mt-tb.cgi/317 fitness magazinesExcerpt: love this site! check out my fitness magazines subscriptions
Weblog: fitness magazines
Tracked: February 7, 2005 06:30 PM
Comments
Ah good, another example of this "My god is better than your god mentality" that is running rampant in this christian painted secular nation of ours. I always thought that the Oscars were meant to award greatness in celluloid art. While politics will always play some roll, I hardly think that a film garnering merely three nominations is being undermined by some left-wing satanic plot. (Check out http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16008_1.html for another right-wing take that rather misses the point)
But I think this speaks to a bigger issue, a dichotomy that befuddles me daily. How is that the majority can feel so oppressed? How can they feel under siege? I was reading some right-wing christian website a few weeks ago, and read that they felt threatened by the liberal left who are trying to undermine their beliefs and take away their bibles.
But what I see in this country is the opposite. I see a narrow segment of right-wing christians trying to legislate their belief systems, everywhere from their anti-evolutionist stance in our classrooms to their doctrines in regard to marriage. As far as I can tell the lions in the coliseum have been declawed and made impotent, and the christians are in charge.
Er, rather a portion of them. Obviously not all christians have the same viewpoints, so those making the rules are not speaking for all. They differ on everything from literal to interpretive readings of differing translations of the bible to whether they drink wine as sacrament or eschew alcohol in total. Gathered up as a whole they really represent quite a disparate array of beliefs. Our society must accomodate all of these beliefs as well as those of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Secular Humanists, followers of Pan, etc.
In order to do that, none of us should allow our own beliefs to impinge on the rights of others. While this can be tricky and may at times seem to limit the public expression of some people's beliefs it is the only way to safeguard our system.
In a country peopled primarily by those who have come from other lands, or whose ancestors have, you'd think we'd someday learn how to embrace a diversity of thought rather than worrying that the irrelevent decision of a cadre of actors is symbolic of moral gangrene.
Praise Brian!
doth endeth my rant.
You'd think we'd be hearing more outrage from the Know-Nots re the reissue of "The Life of Brian," since it is so, so, well, sacrilegious, and deliciously so. Remember the Virgin Mandy (good lord, the character is in drag, for God's sake), and the various sects of the Judean People's Party, etc., and the nudity, and the stonings (well, maybe they'd approve of that). Perhaps it's too far off their radar, unlike poor Sponge Bob and the PBS show about Buster visiting lesbians in Vermont. But what a treat to think about renting it again. Would that we had something akin to Monty Python in the U.S. currently; the Daily Show is good for some things, but Python was scathing to everyone and everything.
Mano, presumably you are in the same camp as Stephen Jay Gould, who didn't think we could afford to ignore the creationists. But I wonder what you think of Richard Dawkins' position that debating them gives them a legitimacy they do not have and can never earn. I am torn, finding both points of view supportable.
Catherine
I have actually debated the ID people, having been invited by them to their annual symposium in Kansas a couple of years ago to debate the question of whether ID belongs in science (I said no).
It was very interesting actually and I enjoyed myself. I met a lot of nice people there who totally disagreed with everything I said! Most of them were not actually even ID advocates but young-Earth Biblical literalists (6,000 years old Earth, Noah's flood, the works).
As for your question, I tend to favor engagement and dialogue, mainly because that is my style and it also has the benefit of clarifying my own views. It also has the benefit of helping me understand the students in my seminar better.
The more I have debated the ID/creationists, the deeper I have understood the nature of science and the less credible ID has become to me. There really is nothing there, something that was not obvious to me at the beginning. So I gained something from the debates.
Of course, there has to be a limit on the amount of time one can devote to this kind of thing and each person has to choose how far they are willing to go.
So I would have to say that I lean towards Gould on the debate question although I think Dawkins is far superior to Gould on the substance of the debate.
I agree that there is no reason to give the "ID" people credibility as scientists, but if the Mano Singham's, Priscilla Princehouse's, Kenneth Miller's, etc. keep quiet then those who are not already informed only hear the voices from the ID side.
It's a tricky issue, because the ID people have been very astute in their use of propaganda. I've had very reasonable and well-educated people come up to me and say, "well what's the harm in letting them discuss both ideas?" The harm lies in presenting it as an alternative scientific theory. There is no harm in open discourse so long as it is in the right place. ID in our science classrooms? Absolutely not. Analyzed as a belief in a religion class? Sure, why not.