That's google's first suggestion if you search "V for vendetta is anti"
-
Ichawiduma — 11 years ago(September 11, 2014 02:58 PM)
It's a funny thing that people who pride themselves on "calling it like they see it" never actually know what they're talking about. It's very clear in the movie that religion/the church is just another arm the government uses to control the population. And if the version of Christianity portrayed in the movie is the one that you personally subscribe to, you should be criticized.
-
dbznarutofan2008 — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 05:07 PM)
I'm a Christian.
However the movie is obviously taking swipes at the neo conservatism that has appeared in the post 9/11 era,and attempting to cloak itself in Christianity.
Any Christian who seriously think all these recent wars were to 'protect our freedoms' is a moron.
Anyone of us that buys into the constant slandering Of Muslims and warmongering in the middle east is also drinking the koolaid.
The neocon 'Christians' are just butthurt that this movie just so happened to take shots at their perverted form of conservative Christianity.
I'm pretty sure V would have been opposed to any tyrannical regime.
If Britains government had turned radical leftist communist instead,he would have fought against it all the same -
dbznarutofan2008 — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 05:14 PM)
As did the hateful British version of Rush Limbaugh
The chancellor was also a fake Christian,that displayed no traits of Christian love in his regime.But as long as the neo con talking heads tell some of the religious koolaid drinkers what they want to hear,they will follow right along. -
cmtlshem15 — 10 years ago(November 17, 2015 11:08 AM)
Exactly. The only Christianity that was portrayed in V was the most false and out-of-context type of Christianity, religion without any actual awareness of God's message. This movie was about totalitarians like the Party in 1984. Their use of fake religion was to accomplish their own agendas, not at all in accordance with Biblical truths of love and grace. I take no offense to this portrayal because it is full of hateful hypocrites.
Modern day example - if someone made a film that disparaged radical deep south "Christians" who currently support the KKK, I would not be offended because they don't represent me or my religious views. They're distorting the whole thing and making a mockery of Christianity. -
rod-davies — 11 years ago(March 12, 2015 10:49 PM)
V: We are oft to blame in this, -
'Tis too much proved - that with devotion's visage
And pious action we do sugar o'er
The devil himself.
This quote is from Hamlet and, to me, it means that the most wicked acts can be, and are, committed under the cloak of public relgiosity.
The film is anti-fascist and if history has taught us anything it is that religion and fascism make for lustful and willing bedfellows. In the film's version of England it is Christianity being used as a tool of oppression. Note that Deitrich owned a Koran, knowing how dangerous it was for him to do so. I have no doubt that if this was set in a Muslim country then it certainly would have been the other way around, with a bible being a prized item for those that valued and longed for freedom. -
grayremnant1 — 9 years ago(April 18, 2016 12:34 AM)
It's not wrong to hate. There are plenty of things on this planet worth hating. Take, for example, skinheads, corporate fascists, lobbyists, lima beans, cancer, malaria. Oh, and the greatest disease of all: Religion. A highly infectious mental disorder that turns beings of logic into babbling, beep-smeared retards who believe in whatever they want to be true, rather than whats substantiated through empirical evidence. And these same morons believe that their children will acquire autism if they get vaccinated. Silly rabbits, you've already given your children autism by taking them to church.