MAY 2004

I am passionately incensed about the passions aroused over The Passion of the Christ. What a circus that was! You couldn’t turn on the TV or turn a page in a magazine or turn the corner at the newsstand without being confronted with the mawkish, sadistic images of that movie. As a general rule no one has the right to comment on a book not read or a movie not seen. Generally I agree with that. But if someone I know and respect tells me that a movie is nothing but child pornography and/or a snuff film, I will not watch it. Likewise with books. But ten people I know and respect have described in detail what the movie was like and their descriptions were identical. And I was horrified. I had already heard that it was bad, but not that bad. The three reviews in the mainstream media that I read did refer to brutality, and "sustained sadism" but the nitty-gritty details are appalling. Whenever a movie strays into a torture scene I have to look away. I cannot bear to watch such cruelty. So there would be no point in my seeing the movie anyway because I’d spend the whole time with my head turned away, looking at the inside of my elbow.

One doctor friend pointed out that the scene of the scourging with a wicked-looking whip could never have happened. Consuming the better part of ten solid minutes, such a vicious beating would break bones and lacerate internal organs. No human body could survive such an assault. So why show such savagery? Another friend pointed out that the scourging scene began by men ripping almost all the clothes off a handsome young male, and then proceeding to whip him. There are S & M movies that begin just like that. The similarities are eerie. The movie also has slow-motion close-ups and dramatic music that would enhance any sexual arousal that might accompany the watching of such bloodlust.

The amount of blood that spurted, flowed and generally splattered the screen is an indication of pure sickness. Dictionary: "sa·dism (sâ¹dîz´em, sàd¹îz´-) noun. 1. Psychology. a. The act or an instance of deriving sexual gratification from infliction of pain on others. b. A psychological disorder in which sexual gratification is derived from infliction of pain on others." Based on the horrible descriptions I’ve received from friends, The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than pornography protected by a thin veneer of religion. I have to ask what would happen if a different religion, say an exotic Satanic group, wanted to make a movie that included scenes of child-torture and child-sacrifice. Would there be an outcry? If so, why? What’s the difference? Spurting, human blood is spurting, human blood, no matter what the age of the blood.

One of the TV ads for the Passion that I could barely mute fast enough features a struggling man carrying an enormous cross on his back, and having trouble doing it. As I wrote in an article for Freethought Today way back in 1994 (titled The Old Rugged Cross) "Purportedly the condemned prisoners were forced to carry their own crosses to their places of death. You can’t help but wonder what would have happened if they had simply refused. What sort of threats could conceivably have been used to force those unfortunate individuals to carry their own crosses? Could things possibly have been made worse for them? ‘You’d better pick up those crosses, you guys, or you’re in big trouble.’ Well, it’s just a thought." And a good one I think.

What I can’t fathom about all this is the joy Christians report after watching this grisly bloodbath. A fiendishly funny friend of mine thought souvenirs would be appropriate for the Passion. Imagine hawkers outside theaters calling out, "Getchyer dead man on a stick!" At first blush it sounds ridiculous; but after a moment’s thought you realize that is precisely what the Pope and thousands of other Christian leaders carry around and place on altars and paint on walls and into glass—a dead man on a piece of wood. What a ghastly symbol!

A tragic irony in the whole crucifix issue is unknown to most if not all Christians. For the first five centuries of the Christian religion, the cross was bare. (Constantine did not wear the cross on his banners—only the first two letters of Jesus’ Greek name, fused together.) It was considered blasphemous to show Jesus suffering the humiliating death of a slave. By the way, the Romans used crucifixion only on slaves and criminals—never on their own citizens. Christians have that one wrong too. By the sixth century the body of Jesus was depicted on crosses, but even at that he was shown wearing a long tunic, with no pain or humiliation. It wasn’t until the tenth century that he was portrayed in agony, and his garments shrank to show his suffering more clearly. Then it stopped at a loin-cloth. That never disappeared. And the history of the world might have altered dramatically if only someone had removed that cloth and shown honestly how people were crucified. Because with that cloth removed Jesus’ obvious Jewishness would be displayed for all to see. Christians would be worshipping a Jew.

Yes, there is lip service paid to the fact that Jesus was a Jew, but that loin-cloth turned him in effect into an honorary Gentile. So much of the artwork you see today, and the statuary, feature a more and more Aryan Jesus. Many paintings and drawings give him blue eyes, a thin, straight nose and very light brown hair. There is a discernable distancing of Christianity from Jesus’ Jewishness. And we can only speculate as to what might have happened if honesty in art had prevailed. But just think: it took one thousand years, half the life of Christianity itself, to finally put Jesus up on the cross, suffering.

Another oddity about those crucifixes (the ones with bodies hanging on them) is the way Christian adults take the inherent barbarism for granted. Looking at a human body nailed to two pieces of wood, with blood flowing everywhere, from the hands and the feet and the side, and a ring of thorns smashed onto the top of the head, causing more dripping blood, is repulsive. Nauseating. Horrifying to contemplate. X-rated filth. However, we can’t see his pee-pee! My goodness, no! That would be naughty. We’ll let our kids look at one of the most obscene, despicable images imaginable, but we mustn’t let them see a man’s penis. That’s indecent. Lewd. But bloody torture? Come one, come all. Bring the whole family! Watch the bloody whipping, see the blood spurting from various body parts! But keep those genitals out of sight! Priorities please.

A visitor from another planet would view this whole business as insanely sick. Which it is. But all across the country churches bought out entire showings for their members. That the movie will gross more than any other movie in 2004 is an unwholesome sign of a voyeuristically sick movie-going public. I see no difference between watching the Passion and watching the games at the Circus Maximus in ancient Rome, where wild animals ripped limbs off gladiators, and gladiators massacred restrained animals. Blood, blood, blood. The crowds loved it. So do the people who wax eloquent about the Passion. Blood, blood, blood. (I’m actually making myself a little nauseous. None of this is pleasant to contemplate, is it?)

What makes the Passion and all it represents even more insane, is that according to Christian doctrine, it was all for nothing anyway! Every person in every one of those theaters stands a good chance of going to hell anyway if they don’t walk the straight and narrow. All the talk about "washing away sins" is baloney. And so is the misleading phrase "sacrificial death." What death? When you "wake up" three days later, you ain’t never been dead! Death has an actual meaning, understood by all, and this stunt supposedly performed by a man named Jesus bore no relationship to the word death. Death means the termination of life. If three days after an event you are hanging out with your friends, walking and talking, that event was not death.

The reason Christians maintained the pagan name of Easter, which was originally Eastre, the name of a Goddess of spring, was to try to incorporate as many familiar rituals and names as possible to attract converts. Example: December 25 was the birthday of the Persian God Mithra. But another funny friend of mine suggested it should be called "Yeaster" because, after all, he had "risen" hadn’t he?

What is not funny about all the fuss about this movie is that it is a reflection of the fanaticism that has swept this country since a Born Again set foot in the White House, a sorry day for the whole world. Magazines, newspapers, talk radio, letters to the editor and even TV’s History Channel are all being swept up in this maelstrom called Christianity. I wonder how many of you have heard about a Bill in the House right now that shows just how imminent a theocracy may be in this country. Here it is in part:

*******************************

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

108th CONGRESS

2nd Session

H.R. 3799

February 11, 2004

[a lot of legal jargon omitted here]

Sec. 1260 Matters not reviewable

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

*******************************

In other words, our Constitution is to be amended to read that GOD (which one?) is the source of our great democratic republic, and civics teachers may say so in public classrooms, and there’s not a damn thing parents can do to stop it because the US Supreme Court will already have decided on the issue. Its doors are closed to anyone seeking relief. If that ain’t a theocracy I don’t know what is! The world is blowing up and our Congress is screwing around with this crap? Even the name of the Bill infuriates me. "Constitution Restoration Act?" What is being restored? Oh, yes, God. The God that was never once mentioned in the United States Constitution in the first place.

I am convinced that it is no coincidence in this election year of 2004 that we are hearing so much God talk and Jesus talk. I am convinced that Mel Gibson had every intention of releasing his movie to whip Christians into a frenzy and get them to the polls to elect a fellow fanatical Born Again. But if this Restoration Act passes we are really in for trouble. Slippery slope. That’s what this will represent. And if that happens, stand back. Because the next step will be that we will have a bloody Jesus at the helm of our federal government. So be afraid. Be very afraid. 

© 2004 Judith Hayes

Source on the history of crucifixes: Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy. Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1988.

Back to Main Page                              Back to Previous Columns