Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Passion of Christ deemed 'Fascist' in France

In one of the more ironic stories of the week, a major French movie distributor, MK2, has refused to release Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ because it is deemed fascist. The company's president, Marin Karmitz, has labeled the movie 'fascist propoganda' due to its perceived anti-Semitic content.

Has Karmitz been on holiday too long and completely lost touch with movie reviews and viewer reactions stateside, which consistently support the notion that Gibson's movie is not anti-Semitic, much less fascist? No. This decision was made purely by Karmitz' disdain for American culture, and the fact that American viewers have made Passion one of the most successful movies ever released. Think I'm crazy? Let's take a look at Karmitz' world view - specifically as it relates to American culture and Hollywood.

In an interview published by Label France in 1998, Karmitz is clear in his opinions of America. He actually claims that Europe and America "are at war". When asked about the growing popularity of multiplex cinemas in France, Karmitz stated that the multiplexes are "giving rise to a two-tier culture, with one type of cinema for the poor and one for the rich. Films that cater for the rich are those where there are still traces of independent creative output while films for the poor have become the 'opium of the masses,' a policy of dumbing-down based on special effects, gratuitous violence, contempt for law and order". He goes on to state "we are in a situation of war, a very modern war, one that is being waged through a new industry, namely the communication in any war, there are those who resist, in this case artists from all over the world, a handful of intellectuals, some people in power, etc. Many are those who are collaborating through financial gain such as the heads of TV stations, who buy American films at inflated prices or who co-finance the U.S. film industry with millions of dollars ".

With this backdrop, Karmitz' motivation becomes much more clear. Passion is an overwhelming success in America. The movie has reminded us all of the suffering Christ endured, reminded us that our sins put Christ on the cross, and as a result has renewed the faith and commitment to Christian ideals within a large segment of the American populace. This movie is not about "special effects, gratuitous violence, contempt for law and order", it's about reflecting on the suffering of Christ, repenting for our sins, about turning our lives back to traditional, conservative values. While movies like Lethal Weapon are received with disdain from the likes of Karmitz, Passion is received with fear. In his mind, the release of Passion on French soil is akin to an American ICBM, with the potential of inflicting mass casualties to the European elitest left. In the laundry list of things that the European left loves to hate about America, conservative Christian values are on the top of the list.

As an aside, French viewers will have the opportunity to view the film in over 400 theaters beginning March 31, thanks in part to Quinta Distribution. Quinta founder Tarak Ben Ammar is convinced the movie is not anti-Semitic, and is arranging screenings for Jewish leaders in France prior to the movie's release. Said Kammar "I thought it was my duty as a Muslim who believes in Jesus, who respects and was brought up in the three (monotheist) religions, to have this film shown to the French and let them judge it for themselves," he told TF1 television late on Monday.

Monday, March 22, 2004

XXX Domain a Good Start

Several new internet domains have been proposed recently, including an XXX domain. This domain would be reserved for 'responsible' purveyors of adult content. I have long advocated such a domain for the primary purposes of isolating pornography onto a single domain. My plan calls for all websites offering adult content be housed within an XXX domain. Once all adult content is isolated on one domain, filtering/blocking becomes quite easy and more effective. Unfortunately, there is no proposal on the table to enforce pornographers to use the XXX domain.

In today's environment, internet pornographers can register any domain name, including the infamous It is impossible to determine the content nature of a site based solely on the domain name. As a result, organizations and families spend millions annually on third party software and services which specialize in blocking adult sites.

Some blocking solutions, such as that built into Internet Explorer, are cumbersome and rely on the publisher to 'advertise' their content rating. More elegant solutions require the development and maintenance of a centralized database of all pornographic sites. The database, which must be updated daily as new pornographic sites come online, is referenced whenever the user types in a new web address, and prevents the user from accessing any sites registered in the database. As you might expect, effective porn-blocking is expensive and somewhat ineffective.

If all adult content were isolated on the XXX domain, however, then the job of filtering out content becomes quite easy. In fact, blocking can easily be managed within the browser, saving organizations and families millions of dollars. In addition, blocking inappropriate content would be much more effective as no daily monitoring of new sites would be required.

There is no arguing that the reach of internet pornography dwarfs that of adult magazines and movies. 20 years ago kids had little access to pornography unless their father had a Playboy hidden beneath their mattress, or they had a big brother or uncle willing to buy them a Hustler. Today, kids just need a computer to readily access hard-core pornography. It would seem that even the most liberal minded individuals would recognize this as a bad thing. Therefore, we should support the creation of the XXX domain, and take the next step of enforcing the publishing of all adult content on that domain.

Monday, March 15, 2004

A Victory for Terrorists

Spaniards handed international terrorists a major victory a few days ago when Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of the nation's Socialist party was elected Prime Minister. Days before the tragic bombing of Madrid's public train system, polls indicated that Zapatero trailed incumbent Jose Maria Aznar in the race for Prime Minister. National opinion changed 180 degrees on March 11, when 200 innocent civilians were murdered by terrorists.

Spaniards cowardly changed their opinion as to who best could run their country because, in the wake of the tragic bombings, it became apparent that Aznar is not popular in terrorist circles. Aznar, noted for his pro-US stance in the war on terror and for his commitment to participating in the Iraqi coalition, is clearly considered an enemy to the murderers known as Al Qaeda. So after watching 200 of their fellow-citizens die at the hands of these terrorists, Spaniards were presented with the classic choice: Fight or Flight. By electing Zapatero, Spain has apparently elected to flee, and have handed enemies of freedom a major victory.

The irresponsiblity of Spain's citizens has also set a dangerous precedent. Stay tuned to the international news wires as elections are conducted in other nations. If the leading candidate happens to be of the tough-on-terror mindset, one afternoon of devastating bombing can change that. That is, if the nation's voters follow the lead of spineless Spaniards.

Friday, March 05, 2004

Christian 'Silent Majority' is Indeed Speaking Out

Recently, editorialists have suggested that Christianity's 'Silent Majority' has yet to be heard on key issues, including gay marriage and abortion rights. These writers suggest that the majority of Christians actually support gay marriage and infanticide, but they are reluctant to speak out as they perceive themselves to be in the minority. As these issues come to the forefront of American policy discussions, momentum will build in support of gay marriage and infanticide as Christian leaders express their up-to-now 'silent' opinions. Or so this line of thinking goes.

Let's take a closer look at that theory. What's happening down at the state level with respect to gay marriage? Today, the state Assembly of Wisconsin approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions. This is important for two reasons: The state already defines marriage as a contract between husband and wife, and does not recognize gay marriage. However, the legislature feels so strongly about the matter that it voted 68 - 27 in support of the amendment, based on the concern that the state statute might be over-ruled by a judge. In other words, the state of Wisconsin is taking no chances in its efforts to ensure gay marriage is never recognized. Secondly, civil unions are viewed by some (including Bill O'Reilly) as a fair compromise on this issue. Based on the amendment proposed by the Wisconsin Assembly, even civil unions would not be recognized. Although the amendment now faces state Senate approval, the nature of the proposed amendment and the margin of victory on the vote suggests that the pendulum of American sentiment is swinging towards Christian moral values, not the other way around.

As another example, the American Family Association (AFA) recently conducted an online poll related to the teaching of homosexuality in public schools. As you might expect, the AFA targets Christians, specifically pro-life and pro-family Christians. Because the school board of Provincetown, Massachusetts has decreed that preschoolers will be presented a positive image of homosexuality, and that the district is called to enact hiring preferences for homosexuals, the AFA was compelled to conduct a poll to gauge the reaction of their members. Given the anonymity of online polls, one would expect to see a fair amount of respondents support the teaching of homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, if indeed the 'Christian Silent Majority' premise is accurate. However, out of 59,641 respondents, only 383 were in support (.64%). 99.36% of respondents stated that homosexuality should not be promoted in public schools.

I'm not a professional statistician, but I can tell you that .64% is nowhere near a 'silent majority'.

Tuesday, March 02, 2004

The Anti-Christian Legislative Union Strategy: Divide America and Destroy Christianity

Every day it becomes clearer that the ACLU (Anti-Christian Legislative Union) is first and foremost a political action committee designed purely to undermine the rights and beliefs of America's Christian population. The ACLU goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure abortions are readily available. This is to be expected from a group that places no value on unborn children. However, the ACLU is also intent on breaking up the Christian concept of family by undermining the role of parents in the important life issues of their children. This includes ensuring teens do not have to discuss the abortion decision with their parents, and ensuring that thousands of teenagers are free to by-pass their parents and procure birth control. It is clear that the ACLU is more concerned with the rights of homosexuals wishing to marry than with heterosexual parents right to maintain their personal family values.

In order to continue their battle, the ACLU needs money. Millions and millions are required to wage their multi-front war against Christianity. To fund their war, the ACLU must continually exploit the liberal left by demonizing Christianity. To the ACLU, the Christian community represents the greatest threat to liberties in this country, and the liberal left is the only source of funding their war. At every conflict, at every important issue, you will find the ACLU working to divide our nation. Rich vs. poor. Black vs. white. Gays vs. heterosexuals. Mothers vs. unborn children. The ACLU works tirelessly to divide our nation - for further proof read ACLU press releases which preface any conservative concept as 'controversial'. The arrogant ACLU believes that anything that opposes their stance is by definition 'controversial'.

It is well known that the ACLU spends millions promoting their anti-life policies. And they aren't very subtle in their disdain for Christianity, as their website correlates Christian influence with the erosion of civil liberties. Their site states: "The ACLU needs your help to defend our most basic freedoms! President Bush and John Ashcroft are rolling back our rights in the name of homeland security . . . extremists on the Christian Right have the ear of the White House . . . and the federal judiciary is increasingly hostile to civil liberties. " What is even more amazing is that the ACLU is also working to overturn legislation related to the prohibition of drug use? To quote their web site: "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs." One would safely assume the ACLU version of nirvana would be a United States comprised solely of drug snorting, pagan, abortionists.

In spite of all these facts, the ACLU maintains that they exist to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. Considering our nation is roughly 75% Christian, and considering the ACLU has been in existence for over 80 years, it should be easy to find at least one example of the ACLU defending a Christian's right to practice his/her religion. One example........

Did they protect Christian's rights to pray in schools? No. Did they protect a Christian's rights to post the 10 commandments in a public place? No. To further bring this point, go to the anti-Christian Legislitative Union's homepage at Under issues, click Religious Liberty. Unlike the 'Lesbian and Gay Rights' page which has countless references and is roughly 35 paragraphs long, the Religious Liberty page is a mere 3 paragraphs. Explore further under 'Religious Liberty Issues', and you'll find dozens of examples of the ACLU's work fighting against public prayer, the ACLU fighting Chesterfield County's tradition of opening Board of Supervisor meetings with Judeo Christian prayer, etc.

What is even more amazing, is that the ACLU also provides a link that touts their fight against Catholic Charities. This organization did not cover the costs of birth control for their employees because birth control is against Catholic teaching. Rather than defend Catholic Charities' rights, the ACLU fought to ensure the organization enacted policies against Catholic teaching. As part of their case, the ACLU stated that Catholic Charities is not truly a religious organization because they provide services to non-Catholics and they employ non-Catholics. So by employing all, and serving all, Catholic Charities is forced to enact policies against the teaching of their faith. Exactly whose civil liberties are the ACLU protecting? Apparently not Catholic Charities.

In summary, it's clear the ACLU is intent on pursuing their liberal agenda by demonizing Christianity. The ACLU will cease to exist if it becomes a balanced organization...protecting a Christian here, a Muslim there, and a homosexual over there. After all, that type of fight is confusing, hard to fight, lacks a specific enemy, and is therefore not profitable. The ACLU knows all too well, that in order to fund their myriads of causes, they must identify an entity opposed to all of their causes. They must draw a clear line of demarcation between good and evil. That line is the front door to your local Christian church, behind which unspeakable evils are preached every Sunday.