Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
I read more gossip sites by 9 a.m. than most people read all day. So forgive me if I’m still stuck on the Mel Gibson story. Today’s entry comes from Alan Cooperman at The Washington Post. I don’t think the story is terribly important or hard-hitting but I do think it’s worth noting.
I spent yesterday in an unformfortable chair waiting to see if I has going to end up on a jury. There’s a good chance I’ll be back in one of those chairs again in the days ahead. The good news is that this allowed me to read some long articles that I had torn out of magazines in recent days and stashed in my battered DC-commuter shoulder bag.
Anyone who paid close attention during the EWTN interviews with Mel Gibson, released during that Christian-media PR wave before The Passion of the Christ, could read between the lines.
When I was in college, about the time that the Earth’s crust cooled, there were two kinds of moviegoers at Baylor University, the world’s largest Southern Baptist institution of higher learning. There were the people who went to Woody Allen movies and the people who did not.
I attended my beautiful cousin’s wedding a few weeks ago where the pastor joked that he was going to do something unorthodox and not to report him to anyone. (Yes, I groaned at that point.) Anyway, he proceeded to rewrite King David’s 23rd Psalm from first person singular to first person plural! Isn’t that so cute and meaningful? Wow, the psalm just sat there and did nothing before this Denver pastor rewrote it.
Aristotle and Plato had different conceptions of what a drunk was responsible for. Plato said the drunk was only responsible for getting drunk. Aristotle said he was responsible for getting drunk but also for whatever happened while he was inebriated. (I should note that I may have completely misremembered these views.)
I think a key question here is still left unanswered: [Kris] Fuhr of Provident Films told you “she was told” that proselytizing was quite specifically the reason for the PG rating. [Joan] Graves of MPAA tells the LAT that religion and evangelizing had exactly NOTHING to do with it.
Buried throughout this New York Times piece on the attempts of conservatives to get into the documentary film business is the question of whether these conservatives are motivated by something more than a political desire to promote conservative ideas.
