Jeff Field, policy analyst and editor of the Catholic League’s monthly journal, Catalyst, provided Bill Donohue with a review of “The Invention of Lying”; Field saw the movie today in New York City. Here are Donohue’s thoughts on it:Has anyone seen The Invention of Lying? It sounds boring, I must admit, but might be worthwile to watch just for the bigotry.
[As I said, he didn't personally see it.]
The trailer to the movie gave no indication of its atheistic-themed plot, but there was enough of a buzz about the agenda of screenwriter Ricky Gervais that we decided to check it out. We’re glad we did. “The Invention of Lying” is not the kind of in-your-face assault that Hollywood often serves up, but therein lies its perniciousness: because this anti-religion—make that anti-Christian—film is laced with some romance and humor, the message it sends is all the more sinister.
[But when you lace child abuse with promises of paradise the perniciousness is forgiven? Or when the Pope condemns the use of condoms with the result that thousands die of AIDS the sinisterness at least isn't laced with romance or humor? So that's okay? Lacing the message with superstition is so much better?]
The movie centers on a world where no one lies. But that changes when the lead character’s mother is dying and the dutiful son finds utility in spinning a tale about a place that resembles heaven, thus saving her from being consigned to an “Eternity of Nothingness.” He subsequently floats the idea that there is a God-like “Man in the Sky,” a belief accepted by most, though some cynics wonder why AIDS exists (it’s never diabetes that Hollywood flags). In mockery, the lead character later shows up looking like a fat Jesus, and an image of him appears on a stained-glass window holding the Two Tablets (of Moses), posing as if on the Cross. In the end, he and his girl are the only two people who haven’t drunk all the moonshine about “The Man in the Sky.”
[Diabetes... Okay, so Hollywood uses AIDS (which, again, the Vatican helps spreading by discouraging the use of condoms), and it's worth mentioning that they don't use diabetes, because... what? But indeed, assuming your benevolent creator, why does diabetes exist? Or AIDS?
Otherwise, it sounds like a not so subtle message.]
We at the Catholic League prefer our bigotry straight-up. We don’t like bigotry-lite, which this is not. But we also don’t like it slipped into our drink. It is not for nothing that the Office for Film & Broadcasting of the bishops’ conference slammed the movie as “morally offensive.” But we are pleased to note that the atheists still use our religion as the model, and still portray God as male. There is hope for them yet.
[I wonder how this movie is morally offensive. The bishops should of course be outraged by the blasphemy. The anti-Christian message should offend them, or Catholicism wouldn't have made it this far, I bet. But morally?
Still portray God as male. I recall a Danish movie from decades ago where Jesus came back as this woman who traveled through toilets. Somehow a non-toilet traveling man works better, I am sure. And as for hope, and apart from the sarcasm, Donohue of course means hope for him and his his religion.]
A new kind of problem
4 hours ago in RRResearch