Pipeline to Jesus 

Criticizing other's expenditures
In "Less Beatings, More Beatitudes" (Fi

Criticizing other’s expenditures
In “Less Beatings, More Beatitudes” (First Person, March 3-10) Fran Quigley criticizes Mel Gibson’s supposed “pipeline to Jesus.” Interestingly enough, Mr. Quigley has to presume his own sort of “pipeline to Jesus” to make the statements that he did. The message was that if Jesus were around today, he wouldn’t be involved in such undertakings, but rather would have helped the poor, mentally ill and diseased people of the world.
“What leftists like Mr. Quigley are trying to do is to try to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews today who, more and more, are aligning themselves against the evils of the modern day leftists.” —John L. Sorg
These, of course, are accurate things to suggest; however, the “pipeline” comes in when it is implied that followers of Jesus, since they went out in droves to see this film, are not doing these things. It is easy to suggest that the money grossed by this film could have been put towards “better things,” but the truth of the matter is we don’t know how people spend their time or money. Maybe they shelled out their $9 to see this film, but what if they’re actively involved at the local homeless shelter, sponsoring children overseas or otherwise donating money to causes impacting the needy of the world? Why is it only this movie that gets such criticism and not every other movie, too? While we’re at it, shouldn’t we criticize all other expenditures, such as how much they spend on fast food? It’s particularly easy to point at Mel Gibson, since he’s one with a lot of money, and criticize his spending of it, or the fact that his film is widely successful and will make him more money. I would posit that Jesus would not want us to be so concerned with (or critical of) what is in each others pocketbooks and rather do what we can within our own means. The message of the film seems to be mostly lost on Mr. Quigley. It isn’t about people “being sneaky” and killing someone. It is about the ultimate display of loving our neighbors — laying down one’s own life. Gregor Morrill Indianapolis
The name of piety
On Saturday, Feb. 28, I attended two productions, each about the civil execution of a good person via pain, violence and abandon. Each production left remarkably strong images and readily Echoing emotions. The Passion of The Christ left me with no uplift of spirit, no redeeming lessons or admonitions after relentless exposure to a catechesis I had pretty darn well taken to my sinful heart. I left the Glendale theaters with relief from overwrought scenes and the threatening intrusiveness of music and bone jarring percussion, supposedly from the heavens. That evening I went to Shaw’s Joan. Directed by Firenza Guidi and carried out by the students at Butler’s Theatre Department, it was a breath of art for art’s sake, a tribute to the creative work of everyone connected with it. Salvation through art after Gibson’s woe-filled indoctrination of the morning. For all its bold, creative conception and staging, Joan was true to Shaw’s text and spirit. Almost surprisingly, the final immolation of the sainted heroine was emotionally gripping. Fascinatingly engrossing from start to finish, the students’ play was the apt counterbalance to the morning’s disappointing extravaganza of cinematic overkill, apparently in the name of piety! Greg Foote Indianapolis
Socialist B.S.
I found Fran Quigley’s review of Passion of The Christ disturbing (“Less Beatings, More Beatitudes,” First Person, March 3-10). It is as if Mr. Quigley was running for office and pandering to his leftist base. First, Mr. Quigley does not buy “the notion that Jesus is Mel Gibson’s co-producer.” I don’t either, but then, no one, especially Mr. Gibson, ever has claimed that to be the case! Nice “straw man” argument, Mr. Quigley! Mostly, Mr. Quigley rants on about the film portraying “sneaky Jews torturing and killing Christ.” He then goes about pretending, as have most of his leftist brethren, that the film is anti-Jewish. It is taken as fact that the followers of Jesus were mostly Jews. It is also true that those most interested in His demise were Jews. It is not an indictment of Judaism past, present or future that this is the case. When President Kennedy was killed some geniuses blamed Dallas and Texas. Did the citizens of Dallas or Texas really kill President Kennedy? They did not and a whole people, the Jews of Jesus’ time, are not responsible for what their leadership did to Jesus! At the end of the movie, Jesus’ mother, Mary, holds Jesus’ dead body and looks out at us, the movie-goer. Perhaps Quigley missed it while still covering his eyes. Mary indicts us, the sinner, not the Jews! Clearly, Mr. Gibson chose a very small snippet in time to present. His movie was not about the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, the wedding feast at Cana, etc. It was about the sacrifice by God of his only Son for the sins of all mankind. This is not difficult but Mr. Quigley chooses to be a “divider, not a uniter.” What leftists like Mr. Quigley are trying to do is to try to drive a wedge between Christians and Jews today who, more and more, are aligning themselves against the evils of the modern day leftists. Mr. Quigley seems genuinely concerned about the passion of the Haitians, the mentally ill, the infected and suggests that a present-day Jesus would be watching movies about these issues. Frankly, Mr. Quigley, He would be out there like Mother Teresa and DOING something about these ills and not spewing socialist B.S. like you do! Mel Gibson simply presented his interpretation of the accounts of Jesus’ agony in the garden, subsequent torture and crucifixion. It is only “polarizing” for those who choose to make it so. It is a shame Mr. Quigley deliberately chooses to be part of such “polarizing”! John L. Sorg McCordsville
God is love
I read the article by Fran Quigley entitled “Less Beatings, More Beatitudes” (First Person, March 3-10). I agree with his concerns for the poor, suffering and mentally ill. Human suffering displayed in all of its forms hurts God. God who dwelt in the flesh for 33 and a half years through Jesus Christ sought during His earthly ministry to alleviate human suffering not only in the physical context but the spiritual as well. Healing all manner of disease and addressing the spiritual sickness of people by calling them to follow Him and be free from the chains of sin. These acts were driven by His love for humanity. The Bible states that “God is love.” Only love would cause Jesus to go through ridicule and be crucified. To the contrary of Fran Quigley’s position, The Passion of The Christ showed the Beatitudes in action. The Beatitudes are actualized by love toward God, which is evidenced in the relationship with God and the treatment of one’s fellow man. Jesus’ love relationship with God and His love for humanity enabled Him to love His enemies and cry out, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” when He hung on the cross. This movie does not polarize but brings people of different religions, ethnic backgrounds and cultures to see love on display. God is love. Jerry D. Lee III Indianapolis
Freedom for all
Marriage by church, not by the law. Why not have civil unions for all? The time honored tradition is now up for debate. It blurs the distinction between church and the state. A conflict of interest: the holy legality. As true patriots we must always favor equality. The freedoms we’ve gotten, though some think it rotten Were meant for all folks, or have we forgotten? Ted J. Schrader Indianapolis

Speaking of Current Events Column

Readers also liked…

Around the Web


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

This Week's Flyers

Today's Best Bets | All of today's events

Around the Web

All contents copyright © 2016 NUVO Inc.
3951 N. Meridian St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46208
Website powered by Foundation