Giving secular humanists everywhere a bad name...
Well, I'm all for promoting secular humanism, but I think these people at this site here have clearly found a line and crossed it.
Information about the DVD they are planting everywhere can be found here.
Now I watched the film, a paltry 60 minutes, of which only 20-30 are actually devoted to the analysis of historical evidence. The evidence itself is shakey at best and would hardly convince a God-fearing Christian that their point of view is wrong. Being an academic, I actually looked up some the passages the film cites and I have to say that the conclusions they are drawing are blatantly unsound as many of the verses seem to be interpreted out of context. Of particular note is the verse they site of Paul explaining Jesus' nature to others in a sermon, in which the film claims that Paul believed Jesus was in fact never on Earth at all, but in fact believed that his birth/death/resurrection all happened in Heaven.
Of course, my own atheism is no secret. I will openly admit to everyone that I have no belief in a higher power. However, be that as it may, I still feel an obligation to challenge the claims of others, especially when those claims are made in the absense of credible evidence. While the filmmaker does point out a few inconsistancies in the Bible itself, I believe he falls prey to the same fallacy that those he is arguing against (fundamentalists) are trapped within: the Bible should not be read as a historical document, period. Once you try to do that you leave the realm of philosophy/history and jump into theology, where unfortunately it seems that logic and evidence play second fiddle to faith.
The last 1/4 of the film follows the filmmaker to a private school he'd attended as a child, where he passive-aggressively seeks revenge by tricking the superintendent into an interview. During the course of the interview, he at first subtly questions the authority of the man and then finally blatantly attacks his credibility. A very Michael Moore move, if I must say so myself. But clearly the final portion of the film was the portion that I enjoyed the least as it shows the filmmaker's argument for what it is: a reactionary statement against an authority he was unable to stand up as a child and has been angry at ever since. Angry at himself, as well, for not doing anything about it when he was a kid.
There was, however, one portion of the film that I did enjoy. In the middle of it, there is a brief analysis of The Passion of the Christ in which it is shown that in only 6 minutes of the entire film are there visuals that don't involve blood, gore, or violence. Fascinating, indeed, especially since the implications of the analysis suggest that religious fundamentalists are bloodthirsty and actually enjoy violence if it leads to religious ends. (Interesting collalary here: if the Iraq war is seen as a religious war, it would explain why so many conservative Christians are eager to see it continue).
In any event, the film is a steaming pile of shit. It touts this great analysis of the Bible and it only spends maybe half of the film pathetically trying to carry out its promise. Tip for next time, buddy, actually do some goddamned analysis and stop relying on marketing techniques and flashy visuals (which were quite nice, I might add, but I was under the influence for part of the viewing) to sell your product. Because lets face it, your film is a commodity. It solves nothing. It will be bought now and forgotten about in a year. It will fill dumpsters and accumulate dust in small, eccentric video rental places like Wild and Whoolly (and this, I might add, no mark against that fantastic enterprise which allows me to explore all manner of foreign and independent cinema).
Returing to my original point, however, I think that this "War on Easter" that they're "waging" is at least one of two things: a) a clever marketing technique, and/or b) another passive-aggressive reaction.
These guys aren't secular humanists. They're just whiney idiots who were angry at their parents for making them go to church and/or a religious private school. Get the fuck over it. You grew up, decided church wasn't for you, now move on with your life. Your crusade is a farse and only makes people like me look bad.
Now once I can find an e-mail address, I'm going to send them a letter...which will probably just be laughed at, but whatever. Can't be heard unless you speak up.
Information about the DVD they are planting everywhere can be found here.
Now I watched the film, a paltry 60 minutes, of which only 20-30 are actually devoted to the analysis of historical evidence. The evidence itself is shakey at best and would hardly convince a God-fearing Christian that their point of view is wrong. Being an academic, I actually looked up some the passages the film cites and I have to say that the conclusions they are drawing are blatantly unsound as many of the verses seem to be interpreted out of context. Of particular note is the verse they site of Paul explaining Jesus' nature to others in a sermon, in which the film claims that Paul believed Jesus was in fact never on Earth at all, but in fact believed that his birth/death/resurrection all happened in Heaven.
Of course, my own atheism is no secret. I will openly admit to everyone that I have no belief in a higher power. However, be that as it may, I still feel an obligation to challenge the claims of others, especially when those claims are made in the absense of credible evidence. While the filmmaker does point out a few inconsistancies in the Bible itself, I believe he falls prey to the same fallacy that those he is arguing against (fundamentalists) are trapped within: the Bible should not be read as a historical document, period. Once you try to do that you leave the realm of philosophy/history and jump into theology, where unfortunately it seems that logic and evidence play second fiddle to faith.
The last 1/4 of the film follows the filmmaker to a private school he'd attended as a child, where he passive-aggressively seeks revenge by tricking the superintendent into an interview. During the course of the interview, he at first subtly questions the authority of the man and then finally blatantly attacks his credibility. A very Michael Moore move, if I must say so myself. But clearly the final portion of the film was the portion that I enjoyed the least as it shows the filmmaker's argument for what it is: a reactionary statement against an authority he was unable to stand up as a child and has been angry at ever since. Angry at himself, as well, for not doing anything about it when he was a kid.
There was, however, one portion of the film that I did enjoy. In the middle of it, there is a brief analysis of The Passion of the Christ in which it is shown that in only 6 minutes of the entire film are there visuals that don't involve blood, gore, or violence. Fascinating, indeed, especially since the implications of the analysis suggest that religious fundamentalists are bloodthirsty and actually enjoy violence if it leads to religious ends. (Interesting collalary here: if the Iraq war is seen as a religious war, it would explain why so many conservative Christians are eager to see it continue).
In any event, the film is a steaming pile of shit. It touts this great analysis of the Bible and it only spends maybe half of the film pathetically trying to carry out its promise. Tip for next time, buddy, actually do some goddamned analysis and stop relying on marketing techniques and flashy visuals (which were quite nice, I might add, but I was under the influence for part of the viewing) to sell your product. Because lets face it, your film is a commodity. It solves nothing. It will be bought now and forgotten about in a year. It will fill dumpsters and accumulate dust in small, eccentric video rental places like Wild and Whoolly (and this, I might add, no mark against that fantastic enterprise which allows me to explore all manner of foreign and independent cinema).
Returing to my original point, however, I think that this "War on Easter" that they're "waging" is at least one of two things: a) a clever marketing technique, and/or b) another passive-aggressive reaction.
These guys aren't secular humanists. They're just whiney idiots who were angry at their parents for making them go to church and/or a religious private school. Get the fuck over it. You grew up, decided church wasn't for you, now move on with your life. Your crusade is a farse and only makes people like me look bad.
Now once I can find an e-mail address, I'm going to send them a letter...which will probably just be laughed at, but whatever. Can't be heard unless you speak up.