On a wing and a prayer

Hands up if you're going to heaven if I crash it.

Reminds me of that lovely moment in a chat show, where the host is astonished by the inappropriate Jesus plug. Dissonance as striking as finding out that Mel Gibson is a hardcore antiPope catholic.

Talking of which.

Although I can well understand the furore Gibson's film has caused (I commented back a bit but I can't be bothered digging up the permalink), I think it's fair to say that the worst he has done is quote the gospels. My source for understanding the last days of Jesus is the New Testament. That's where I read it and there's not much doubt that the Jewish priests clamour for his end, nor that the crowd voted him off the show. I'm not a huge fan of "reinterpreting" history or what has been written (although I'm thoroughly amused to find out that the 100 great black britons included Queen Charlotte (not black), Queen Phillipa of Hainault (no reason to believe she was black either), King Kenneth of the Picts (dark but not black despite that being his nickname -- hey, if being called "the Black" is taken to mean you were a black man, does that mean Beethoven was Spanish (his nickname was "the Spaniard" because of his broody swarthiness (shit, that thinking would make me black too, not that I'd mind))), Septimius Severus (! not black even though he was born in what was then and is now Africa, not British, although he did die on a visit here, and not more than a little bit great), Phil Lynott (not British) and Saint George (not only not black and not British but never came to Britain and may not even have been a wholly real person)--and let's not forget Zadie fucking Smith (!! certainly black but by no means great unless winning a women-only award amounts to an achievement on a par with, for example, discovering the electron)) and whatever motives Gibson has for doing the film of the book, should it be demanded of him that he films the milksop interpretation of it that the Vatican has come up with in the name of ecumenicism? (They say blame it on the Romans, basically because there are no Romans -- it's that silly.) It's the source that is anti-Semitic, after all.

Okay, I'm d to the evizzle advocating it. Gibson could help allay the controversy. Problem is, like many Christians, he does have a few unsavoury ideas about Jews. Well, only *slightly* unsavoury, if we're not to exaggerate. Suggesting a clique pursued Jesus's death for mostly political reasons is a long way from suggesting all Jews should pay an eternal price for it, and even if some do draw the latter conclusion, I don't see Gibson doing that.

I suppose it's the danger of the idea pulled to its extreme. We know all too well where it leads, if unchecked. We know that even the most reasoned ideas can be used to justify our enormities. But does that mean we should still all ideas that might be so used? That seems to be the thrust of the antiGibson argument.

What do I think? Who gives a fuck? It's all ancient history.

posted by Dr Zen @ 2:07 am