''Christianity manifestly did not produce the Dark Ages - which instead were induced by invasions of Imperial Rome by tr
-
ContinentalOp — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 03:40 AM)
Sorry, I just suffer religious nuts gladly. And I never claimed to be tolerant to your ilk. I am no liberal.
And I do have nothing but contempt for you and your kind; I have contempt for Christian morons like you who always try to stand in the way of progress and refuse to acknowledge your less than glorious history. I regard you as lowly as I regard racists and I am not even sure why I bothered to reply to your drivel in the first place which I'll not do again, your views are considered idiotic by most people in the Western world and you are, thankfully, a dying breed.
And your world view isn't rich at all, it is as poor as your cardinals are rich.
Formerly KingAngantyr -
GoUSN — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 09:07 AM)
There is something uniquely entertaining about unwitting self-parody. Contempt. Christian morons. Stand in the way of progress. As low as racists. Drivel. Views idiotic. Dying breed.
There is no evidence in history that world-views like yours can ever be sustained or sustainable. There is ample evidence, however, that world-views based on the Judeo-Christian construct are uniquely durable - outlasting even their most murderous tormentors all throughout history. I don't expect someone as misled as you to understand that, but I certain want malleable readers to understand that hate like yours has plenty of historical precedent, and none of it is good. Atheism has sustained only the most grisly regimes, resulting in organized death over the millennia to hundreds of millions. From the pagan Romans to the atheist "revolutionary" Napoleon to atheist Stalin to atheist Hitler - they all ended up being outlasted by the conjoined forces of faith and freedom.
Yours is an imprisoning point of view, and it consumes you with a hate that causes you to even lash out at strangers that you manage to hate even through the complete anonymity of an entertainment website.
My worldview has sustained itself since Abraham met God. Yours is a puny little movement that celebrates only the self, and hates the rest. I don't know exactly what goes on at atheist jamborees, but your historically ignorant talking points give a clue. Poor you. -
schooly85 — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 05:42 PM)
May I ask what university you studied at?
My immediate reaction was that it seems a little naive to presume a Catholic university to be completely objective, impartial and unbiased in it's account of Christian, and more specifically Catholic history? I don't say that by way of an attack. Even the most well-meaning and earnest individuals and institutions are unintentionally coloured by cultural, political bias (both yours and those
"outlandish' institutions of higher learning"
you so curtly and disparagingly dismiss).
Regarding 'revisionism': personally I firmly believe that historic accounts and their authors should be subjected to
continuous scrutiny and revision
. Weeding out such unintentional (and sometimes very deliberate and strategic) cultural/political bias is but one amongst many good reasons for doing so!
As for:
Detach Christianity from the western construct, and voile! [sic] No western construct'
this is pure conjecture and, frankly, nonsense. If you'd said 'A very different Western construct', I'd probably concur. But who can possibly say what that alternate history would look like, let alone make subtle insinuations as to which would be better or worse? Someone with a strong cultural/political bias toward, or a vested interest in the 'construct' they endorse and/or exist within, perhaps?
And finally, whilst I'm not normally one for grammatical pedantry (after all, language is a tool for expression of thought, not the thought itself), since you so freely and disparagingly dismiss others and accuse them of
(historic)
illiteracy
, I feel inclined to indulge myself in this instance:
Voile: a soft, light fabric that you can see through slightly, often used for making curtains, summer clothes, etc -
MLHendrick — 18 years ago(February 17, 2008 01:05 PM)
[SPOILER ALERT] The Mission is a great film about the very best and the very worst of "organized religion," but admittedly you'd have to be familiar with organized religion at least that of the Christian persuasion to appreciate it. As I pointed out under the question about "symbolism," the last scene is deeply significant/symbolic the naked kids retreating deeper into the jungle to start over, totally naked, stripped not only of their "western" coverings but also the loincloths, jewelry, markings, etc of their tribe. It's like this group of kids esp the naked girl who grabs the violin, the naked boy who steers the canoe are a new "Adam and Eve," retreating further into the "Garden of Eden" described in the book of Genesis (remember that Gabriel & the nuncio talked about this resplendent area being "like Eden"). Organized religion, when it lusts after power, goes the way of the original Adam and Eve as we see here. And one of the ripple effects of "orignal sin" is that the church, ironically, has blood on its hands kills one of its own just like Cain clobbered Abel. Also under the symbolism post, I pointed out how significant it was that the girl rescued a violin from the water a European instrument and idea, but crafted of native wood and natives' skill and appealing to their innate love of music rather than the wholly European import of the formal/guilded candlabra that was also in the water.
Music, purportedly permeating this film the way it does, alongside the gorgeous beauty of nature is of the same transcendent, heavenly inspiring realm as is the natural surroundings. Both are "of God" (which, by the way, is how the natives were finally won over; their singing the "proof" that they did indeed have a soul, were humans and not "animals" as the slave traders argued. The violin, of course, representing among the best of Christianity's influence so many compositions by Mozart, Bach, et al that were religious in origin.
I won't even get into the whole role/portrayal of Christian martyrdom in both its forms, nonviolent resistance and the "morality" of armed struggle when so many of the issues of "just war" theory are teased out (defending the innocent, etc.) Not only does the Christian church rise out of the "blood of the martyrs" but, as the film notes at the very end, Christian (especially Catholic) missionaries are still martyred throughout Latin America, siding as they do with the native peoples on issues of land reform. Interesting that Fr. Gabriel's nonviolent method (that of Gandhi, that of Martin Luther King) "outlasted" the armed struggle of Rodrigo Rodrigo watches, doesn't die until he sees Gabriel fall. But even more interesting is the way that Rodrigo, in an almost perfectly parallel parable to that of the "little lost lamb" told by Jesus endangering the entire flock by going out on a limb to rescue the one lost, little "expendable" lamb (contrasted, by the way, to that scene where the conquerers invade the bigger mission and make mothers place their babies on a heap in the mud, presumably to exterminate the lot of them) saves the little kids on the bridge, rather than having them die when the bridge blows up, thus blowing the grandest plan they had to save the mission. This is what redeems Rodrigo, in my opinion; shows that he didn't simply "revert" to his old sinful way of murdering.
Say what you want about "organized religion." Because it is "of this world," it will always contain an element of human sinfulness and foible, and to the doubting/cynical, it will be as a glass that is half empty instead of half full. For many atheists, no doubt, it's like panning the movie that you never saw relying on the reviews and rants of others rather than first-hand experience. And, indeed, anyone who isn't well-versed with the Christian story, DIDN'T in some sense, "see" this movie either even if they watched the film. Like TS Eliot would say, "They had the experience but missed the meaning." Don't get me wrong; I'm Christian, but a liberal Christian who puts free will at the top of the list of God-given gifts. "Organized religion" in the widest, purest sense whether it's the Christian version or the ancient and time-honored oral traditions of ancient peoples, bubbling up eg in the phenomenon of the dark-skinned Lady of Guadalupe at least preserves "the story." -
sakkamarra — 16 years ago(September 08, 2009 11:20 PM)
I'm an atheist, and I very much enjoyed your post. It appears there is some truth in what you say, in that there are analogies to Christ and the bible in this beautiful movie that may have gone over my head because I am not looking for them as some ardent Christians might.
I do wish to point out, however, that the opposite is also likely true and some Christians may not have entirely "seen" this movie either. There are aspects of the movie that willingly or not do point out the hypocrisy and failures of organized religion.
I like to think about what Rodrigo and Gabriel's inspirations really were. Were they inspired by Christ, or was there something innate within them telling them what was right? An atheist would likely say both, while a Christian would probably say that they are the same thing. -
katiegan — 18 years ago(March 13, 2008 07:11 PM)
The theology is correct in part of the Jesuits. At this point in history, the Catholic church was just a much a political power as it was a theological influence.
But no - I do not believe it is an Atheistic film in any sense. The theological and political tryst are summed up well in the last few words of the Cardinal
Senor Hontar says something like it - the slaughter was necessary because thus is the world, and the Cardinal responds "No Senor Hontar, thus I have made it".
It is a struggle of personal conscience and what is just vs. what must be done for political gain. -
przgzr — 18 years ago(March 17, 2008 08:02 PM)
In fact this is complete truth. But your words leave place for misunderstanding, so I'm not sure if you are not certain what was happening, or it was just a choice of words that, though correct, might mislead someone who is not informed well enough to make a wrong conclusion.
So I'll add few notes and I hope that you don't mind (but if you don't agree with me, please reply).
"What must be done for political gain" doesn't have the same meaning now as it did so many centuries ago. Yes, church is rich and was rich, probably more in those days, it has power now and it had more power in those years.
But power was bigger in lower social classes, mostly because church had knowledge and was supported by monarchs, while ordinary people had no knowledge and were supported by nobody - except that same church, in case if they were devoted to their priests.
However, the power and wealth of church didn't influence much on the aristocracy and monarchs. If any modern priest, bishop, pope has enough money, he can buy a plane or ship ticket and go to America, Australia, Asia. He and his congregation can buy a house or land to build a church. Centuries ago there was no ship to take them to America unless a king allowed it. They had to be given a permission to build churches or to be present in certain country, because religions were usually official regarding to the monarch's religion. So if the monarch was unsatisfied by certain priest or religion group in general, he could have made their life and work difficult, or simply forbid it.
So, despite wealth and power, people of the Church had to consider the will of the politicians when they were making decisions like the one in "Mission": maybe they sometimes had to sacrifice some people so the religious community could survive and exist in future (and contribute to prosperity of society in situations when politicians didn't have so big interests). It might seem to be a hypocrisy, and it is indeed, but not a bit as big as if it happened in modern world. However, we can see hypocrisy by far less frequently among priests than among modern politicians (those kings in old days were at least honest enough to say that this is what they want, so it must be; and modern presidents and prime ministers try to make us believe that their procedures are something that can't be avoided, something for benefit of the whole civilization, or - as the ultimate hypocrisy - something that we want). -
zelda1964 — 15 years ago(August 23, 2010 06:24 AM)
I write this to say I just caught "Mission" again(this morning) and express my opinions.It was the fact that The Church wanted to "indoctrinate" a people that
seemed uncivil.When the missionaries did a great job of "teaching" the so- called natives,then it was necessary to kill what Life they had.
That is a case of "too many cooks" spoiling the Broth. -
MovieMan1975 — 16 years ago(May 13, 2009 03:53 PM)
No this is not an atheist film. Its the opposite, its a film about faith in religion and the love of God.
The higher elite of the Church may not be shown in the best of lights, but the depiction of the work of the Jesuit missionaries is definitely overtly pro-Catholic. -
fileboy2002 — 16 years ago(November 06, 2009 09:42 AM)
There is no way to begin this thread with, "Is this an atheist film?" and not have it become a slanging match. And I think you must know that.
The short answer is no, this is not an atheist film. It is strongly pro-Catholic while simultaneously being strongly anti-clerical. This combination of reverence for the faith and disdain for the Church hierarchy is common throughout Latin America and in Spain.
In Mexico today, a marriage cermony carried in a churchany churchhas no legal standing. Couples must obtain a civil marriage certificate in order for a marriage to be legally recognized. No president of Mexico dared be photographed outside a church until the mid-1980s. This is not because Mexico is anti-Caothlic; however, the Mexican ruling elite are leary of sharing power with the Church. This is why a profoundly Catholic country is so ambivelant about the Church.
I think the film carries this basic sensibility. -
Hypatia42 — 16 years ago(December 31, 2009 12:21 AM)
Unfortunately, I think this film simply reinforces viewers' preexisting opinions on religion in the world. Atheists look at it and see the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of organized religion that makes it so easy to reject churches, while the faithful look at it and feel inspired by the self-sacrifice of the noble missionaries who lived and died for their ideals in a difficult world.
I don't think the film ever confronts the 'truth value' of the Christian faith. This is why there are a number of posts on this film's board about whether or not the Jesuits were immoral themselves as they were also cultural invaders. The forces in this film (power structures, economics, ideals) collapse at a predictable rate and represent the human condition. I do not believe the story itself proselytizes in any sense, happily leaving the viewer to their faith or atheism. Instead it is probing (if some what narrowly) the meaning of martyrdom within the Christian tradition in light of the human condition.
I think you can be absolutely anything or anyone and contemplate alongside the film. -
danfinocchio — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 01:54 PM)
Its on the Vatican's greatest movie list, so its definatley NOT an atheist film.
http://www.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml -
netrek — 15 years ago(September 19, 2010 06:04 AM)
In my view this movie showed how wonderful true Christian faith put into practice can be. And even though the ending shows material destruction of the missionaries and the native peoples they have achieved spiritual and moral victory.
-
montecristo42 — 15 years ago(December 20, 2010 08:05 AM)
Speaking as an admitted atheist (and one who adores this film), I don't think this is an atheist movie at all. It's about a great many things.
Liberation theology, individual morality, political morality, faith, redemption, how best to pursue one's ideals in the real world, etc.
At some level, though, I think this movie is an indictment of organized religion from a macro-level. It's not saying that all religious people are bad; that is a gross oversimplification, and the movie trusts that we're smart enough to get that. Our heroes, of course, are Jesuits who genuinely believe they are helping the natives. Whether they did (excluding the issue of religious conversion) is up for debate. But I don't think there's any way to condone, excuse, or ignore the unpleasant fact that the Church, as an institution that is, ultimately failed in protecting the very people it set out to "save."
People will argue that it was really a failure of one man - the Cardinal - and that it's impossible to blame the Church as a whole. But this flies in the face of most modern morality and our current jurisprudence. The Cardinal was acting on behalf of the Church; he was its representative; the Church existed, at least partly, through him in South America.