Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Looking Closer

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
Mysteries of the Lost Comments #1

Mysteries of the Lost Comments #1

Last updated on: July 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Mysteries of the Lost Comments #1 2012-07-21T14:03:02-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In spite of a simple, fair Comments Policy that is available through not one but two links on my blog’s home page, sometimes I receive comments that clearly violate those simple guidelines.

Today, I received one of them in response to my review of The Dark Knight Rises.

Rather than just trash the comment, I think it provides what some would call “a teachable moment.” While I welcome disagreement, and get it frequently from good friends, from coworkers, and from visitors to my my Facebook page, my Twitter account, in email, and elsewhere, I have no patience for disagreement that is delivered with disrespect, hostility, insults, prejudice, or cruel generalizations.

Let’s look at this comment from someone named Aaron:

Oh no! A big-budget movie that asks ethical questions and instead of TELLING YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK it wants you to… GASP… think about these questions YOURSELF!? How dare they!?

A few points to consider:

1. Aaron begins with sarcasm. Immediately. Sarcasm is not evil, but it is generally a bad way to encourage dialogue. Not a good start if you hope to be taken seriously. I’m not quite ready to disregard the comment, but I’m proceeding with caution, and a sense that things might go from bad to worse.

2. He follows that with blasts of all capital letters. Because… well, I’m not sure. Capital letters usually indicate shouting. When someone shouts at me, I back away from them. When someone shouts at me, it usually suggests that their emotions are overpowering their intellect.

3. His characterization of my response shows he didn’t read it closely. His comment suggests that I demand answers from art, not questions. This suggests that he is attacking me without having read much of my work. I celebrate art’s capacity for asking questions frequently, even relentlessly. So the suggestion that I would reject such an idea shows that this fellow is attacking without reading very carefully. I never said that the movie is wrong for asking questions. I indicated that I believe it gets tangled up in its questions, and that it ends up creating confusion instead of exploring it in an enlightening way.

If Aaron thinks that I have not appreciated the film’s questioning nature, I can respect that opinion, even though I disagree. If he had made this argument with the tone of a respectful guest, I would have been happy to allow the comment and to engage him in conversation.

Let’s continue:

Reading this outside of the American brainwashing bubble, these repeated references to religion I’m finding in many US reviews are… a bizarre portrait.

Okay, let’s stop right there. “The American brainwashing bubble”?

4. Aaron is speaking with mean-spirited prejudice, delivering insults to Americans in general… that Americans are brainwashed. This is not progress.

Reading further:

Perhaps that’s the ironic joke? Lots of you are clinging to the idea that the key to unlocking the film is that this is a city with no religion? But then look at some of the hypocrisy in the responses – such as suggesting the Gotham world differs from the religious world because the crusade is carried out with “rage, not love”. Ummmmm, ever properly looked at the history of Christianity? Ever removed the deceptive slogans of contemporary US christianity and looked at what it is motivated by and for?? Mostly, it crusades against social minorities, lobbies for the rich to remain rich, and ultimately justifies killing.

Now Aaron is showing what he really thinks.

5. Aaron is condemning my religious beliefs. Christianity, he believes, is just a sham, a lie used to justify all kinds of violence. Why? Because he can think of examples in which violence was excused in the name of Christianity.

By this logic, the entire world of sports is a sham, because, well, a lot of athletes are guilty of using steroids and a lot of coaches are guilty of sexual abuse. If we can think of examples of bad behavior under the banner of professional sports, is the world of professional sports thus essentially wicked?

If, when you consider Christianity, you can only think of what people have done to misrepresent it, what horrors have been committed in its name, then you are not looking very closely. You are ignoring the centuries of saints, of great leaders and statesmen and artsts and servants, of sacred writing, of loving outreach to the poor and the afflicted, of liturgy, of lives raised from darkness and transformed. Never mind about the Scriptures themselves. Never mind about Jesus or what he taught.

To say nothing of Johnny Cash.

People do horrible things all the time, misrepresenting the causes they claim to represent. This is true of Christianity. It is also true of any religion you could name. It is also true of science. Of atheism. Of athletics. Of business. Of medicine. Of education. If you take the position that Christianity is a disease because some have committed crimes in the name of Christ (just as Christ warned us would happen), even though those behaviors are blatant violations of the Scriptures and Christ’s teaching, you are flaunting your ignorance, you are engaging contentiously instead of respectfully, and you are toeing the line of prejudice and hatred.

When you begin by accusing Christians of violence and hatred, and fill your protest with, well… violence and hatred… we have a problem.

But wait, there’s more:

Of course, you can just soak up the TV over there and feel good about these wars in the name of God, but go see the destruction caused in Iraq, or anywhere American Imperialism has ravaged for economic gain – then sold to the public with a bunch of hollow religious references – and you’ll be hard pressed finding any kind of “love”. You’ll just start to comprehend a society that uses religion as a mask to hide the not-so-loving impulses it happily elicits, when push comes to a rather forceful shove. Perhaps Gotham is not so different, after all.

6. Aaron is creating a cruel caricature of a whole culture. According to him, Christianity is the cause of the destruction in Iraq. Now Christianity and American Imperialism are being held up as the same thing. That’s a problem, whether it’s done by misguided Americans or by those looking at us from afar.

See, this is the problem with judging someone from a distance. You can’t see them clearly. You can’t know them. Many of the voices and forces most active in questioning America’s tendency toward “imperialism” are the voices of Christians. There are so many books by Christians challenging, questioning, and dismantling the destructive consequences of equating Christianity with patriotism… especially militant patriotism… that I could provide quite a reading list for you.

I could go on, but that’s where Aaron stops, so that’s where I’ll stop.

I’m filing this rant as only the second entry in the Lost Comments file. (The first one contained this lovely sentiment: “since everyone who disagrees with you basically gets lectured to death….” Yeah. Right. There’s a difference between disagreement and hostililty.)

I won’t block Aaron from commenting in the future. Not yet. Maybe he’ll read this and consider a different approach. But in the interest of inviting people to contribute to civil discourse, I’ll consider another blast like this to be disruptive, and a cause for dismissal from “the table.” Aaron is welcome to rant like this elsewhere on the internet, and I’m sure there are plenty of other sites where comments like that are permitted. I’d like this blog to be a different sort of place.

I hope that makes sense to all of you. Comments are welcome. And my email address is always open: joverstreet [at] gmail (dot) com.

Blog

Comment Policy

Previous Post

July 20, 2012

Notes from Gareth Higgins and Scott Derrickson on the Shootings in Colorado...

Next Post

July 22, 2012 Diagnosis: A Disappointing Dark Knight

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In 1 Peter, what does Peter say Christ was chosen before but revealed in when?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Before the creation of the world, revealed in these last times Before the prophets spoke, revealed at Pentecost Before Abraham was born, revealed at his baptism Before time began, revealed at the resurrection