2012 Offends Catholics, Dimwits, Ex-Cons

The huge new disaster movie 2012 opens this Friday. Everyone but HuffPost blogger John Cusack drowns, but not before a statue of Jesus crumbles, a crack opens in the Sistine Chapel roof -- right between the fingers of God and Adam -- and St. Peter's Basilica falls over on a lot of Italians. These images have offended the usual people in the I'm Offended Industry, but not for the reason you'd think.

The offense takers are offended because 2012 forgot to offend any Muslims.

Here's Greg Gutfeld, who used to be a HuffPost blogger and now has a public access TV show:

But there was one thing missing among

He means "amid."

the carnage: an Islamic target...

In an interview, the director (Roland Emmerich) said he hoped to destroy the Kaaba, an Islamic holy site, but his fellow screenwriter Harald Kloser persuaded him not to.

Here's what the hack had to say about crushing the Kaaba:

"Well, I wanted to do that... but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie..."

Hollywood screws with Christians because Christians don't behead people. But tweak Islam, and you could end up like director Theo van Gogh -- dead on a street with a flag impaled on your chest.

Not what "impaled" means. But a frightening image, anyway. A man lying dead, with his chest sticking through a flag.

If there's one thing Greg Gutfeld hates more than anti-Christianity, it's hacks, with their bad writing.

Bill Donohue, a divorced shakedown artist with no professional ties to any church, frequently appears on television as "president and CEO" of the "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights." He's also available for parties and boycotts. He says:

Emmerich is more than a coward -- he is a liar who has it out for Catholics. Last year, he was quoted saying, "I would like to erase all nations and religions." Not true. He is quite content to live with Islam, even though he readily admits it is a religion of terror...

Every time I say Hollywood hates Christianity, especially Catholicism, my critics cringe. But they never offer evidence that I'm wrong.

I'll bet that's not the only time Bill Donahue gets the cringing thing.

I'm sorry Bill Donahue's having such a bad time on Earth. Wait till he gets to Hell. Simonists are ever less comfortable there.

In a column for The Christian Post, Chuck Colson, an elderly jailbird, says the deeper problem with 2012 is that "Western culture might have lost its faith, but folks have not lost their anxieties." That's why we turn to "new-age versions of these faiths." Like "the environment" and "global warming."

And there you were, thinking the worst thing about 2012 was going to be that Adam Lambert song.

They're missing the point, of course. The reason Roland Emmerich chose Catholic icons to destroy is out of respect for Catholicism. Because even a guy who could ruin the Godzilla franchise knows that Catholicism means real religion, and everything else is sort of silly.

Chesterton asks us to imagine blaspheming Odin. You can't. You'd just sound like a dope.

Or as Lenny Bruce said:

The only "The" religion, actually, is Catholicism. I mean, as far as strength. Paramhansa Yogananda's cute, but The Church, that's it.

Here's the really tasteful hidden imagery in 2012:

Oh fun. The plane's about to crash into those twin skyscrapers.

And look over on the right. First there's the Library Tower. (Or as George Bush, America's Greg Gutfeld called it, "The Liberty Tower.") It was destroyed by Ronald Emmerich in Independence Day and was identified by the Kean Commission as the fifth target on 9/11.

Now look at the building to the far right. The earthquake is the least of its problems. See the three explosions blowing out the windows of its lower floors? Oh my God! It's being imploded by a controlled demolition!

 

Comments

[Tags]

Of course the professional offendees are going to be offended. It's a living. The real issue is the lack of a grown pair.

Last time I looked, Salman Rushdie is still alive.

As Donovan once almost said, "First there is a fatwa, then there is no fatwa, then there is..."

[Jackalheadedgod]

Haw haw! Nice.

Cheers, Jack

[fran-pan]

how can people take this so called prophesy seriously??? where are the Mayans now? if they knew so much,why didn't they survive???

[Pyfagorus]

This "prophesy" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Maya. It is 100% the creation of recent New Agers and Doomsdayers.

[johnsopinion]

ROFLMAO!

[ArborialBiped]

Where to begin....

1. Hard to imagine that a being powerful enough to create the universe could be harmed by some cheesy CGI scenes or even some rude words.

2. The Church is not God; it's an ancient, patriarchal political institution of vast earthly wealth and power that *claims* (like many others) to have the unique correct understanding of God.

3. Of course Hollywood and media types are cowards and opportunists, cringing in fear of the wildly irrational, violent responses of Muslims to any hint of offense to their belief systems.

4. Islam started about 600 years after Christianity. 600 years ago Christians were still slaughtering "heretics", "pagans", Muslims and Jews. Perhaps in 600 years the Islamic world will tolerate dissent, science, literature and human rights.

[beelzabubbleboy]

not offended but not interested. i dont understand how something like this qualifies as entertainment.

The end of the Mayan calendar is simply the end of an Age and the signs of that are everywhere. I am quite sure the changes will be positive.

[zola77]

What are the signs?

[rosewelsh]

As a non-Christian I enjoyed not having to endure religious fearmongering in 2012 like I did in the moving Knowing. I went fully expecting it, but wanting to see one of my favorite small budget film actors make it to the big time. I'm sure that Knowing was meaningful to open-minded Christians who aren't offended by the assumption that avenging angels are aliens. I however, was revolted by the personalized carnage and horror and completely unmoved by the Christian apocalyptic overtones. In 2012 the Mayan predictions are there alongside the Christians proclaiming End of Days. But it's not dwelt upon; none of the religious content is force fed to us, but just allowed to be part of the plot; for instance the notion of the great Biblical flood and Noah's ark. I for one loved the images of our corrupted governmental, religious and secular institutions crumbling; even though it would have been nice to see a lot more diversity. But I guess you only have so many millions of bucks to devote to special effects so you go for the ones that will affect the majority of the audience.

My absolute favorite image from 2012 was the pull back shot of Earth at the end showing where humanity would start over: Africa. The place we came from originally will be where we get to start over again.

[glockman]

How about being offensive because it was a crappy movie?

[Lulubelle1]

Disaster flicks are, by their very nature, intended to evoke the horror of... well, disasters, then give their everyman heroes the chance to survive and maybe save the day so that all is back on its way to normal by the end.

I'm not Catholic, but I would instantly recognize the Sistine Chapel being destroyed, and feel a bit of a thump in the pit of my stomach at the thought of it being gone. Be flattered, Christian complainers, that these landmarks are so beloved and well-known that it's horrifying to see them smashed time and time again.

I'm not so sure an image of an Islamic holy landmark would produce the same effect for me, because I'm much less likely to recognize it, much less have an established concept of its longterm existence. That is likely true of many people, at least in Western nations of primarily Judeo-Christian culture.

If producers are spending $20 million on a protracted CGI sequence of mass destruction, every second of screen time should probably produce some strong effect on the viewer.

Maybe it's just a practical matter to destroy icons most familiar to Western audiences. Or maybe Islamic leaders should look into better PR and marketing of its landmarks to the Westerners, eh?

[Nanotyrnns]

Here's something the Easily Offended are forgetting about the advent of CGI: it's sole purpose, lo, these last years, is to provide Hollywood directors the ability to destroy, repeatedly in movie after movie after movie after movie, famous landmarks. I mean, honestly, how many times have we seen Manhattan flooded and frozen? How many times have we seen Washington, the Colosseum and Paris obliterated by meteors and whatnot?

Also, the reason they choose those landmarks is because they are landmarks. We all know about St Peter's, the Library Tower, and the Great Jesus Statue of Brazil because we see them in books, magazines and tv shows that showcase them to remind us of how poor we are because we can't go see them in person. How many people in America even know what a mosque really looks like let alone a "famous" one? Ten? Twenty? They could have just as easily blown up La Sagrada Família and Americans would have cheered "Take that islamofascist religion of hatred!!"

Sheesh. These folks need a hobby. Maybe they could occupy themselves planning another crusade.

[billhodges]

The Muslims have accomplished exactly what they wanted by sowing fear into the minds of the non Muslims ion the world. It is Politically incorrect to not say anything demeaning or negative even if it is true about Muslims, WHY?

It is OK to demean other religions but not the Islamic religion. Something is very wrong when people begin to act out of fear rather than logic. I guess if the Christians or Jews were willing to take to the street and threaten people over a cartoon the people would stop criticizing them as well.

It is pathetic the way people protect the most violent religion in the world which allows them do as they wish with impunity.

[billhodges]

I mean to say, It is Politically incorrect to say anything demeaning or negative even if it is true about Muslims, WHY?

[ramper]

And they know it will always be easy to influence spineless wimps in Hollywood.

[elkabong]

The radical American Christians have accomplished exactly what they wanted by sowing fear into the minds of the non Christians in the world. It is Politically incorrect to not say anything demeaning or negative even if it is true about Christians, WHY?

It is OK to demean other religions but not the Christian religion. Something is very wrong when people begin to act out of fear rather than logic. I guess if the Secular Humanists were willing to take to the street and threaten people over a woman's right to choose, the Christians would stop criticizing them as well.

It is pathetic the way people protect the most violent religion in America which allows them do as they wish with impunity.

[elkabong]

I mean[t] to say, It is Politically incorrect to say anything demeaning or negative even if it is true about Christians, WHY?

[vim876]

Because people don't want to risk their lives for a disaster movie. Plenty of people say negative things about Islam. If this movie were about religion or Islam in particular, it would be worth the risk to say something. But if you can make the point about destruction of even earthly representations of God without a fatwa on your head, that's what you're gonna do.

[mckinley]

what DOESN'T offend Catholics?

and I bet you if Emmerich offered $1.000,000 of the film's profits to the Church they would shut up.

[vim876]

Not sure about that. The Church has more money than God.

[NYkid]

The occupation of PaIestine is an act of daily terror either, and I don't see too many Hollywood films portraying it.

[IndependentBadger]

That's a weak argument. Using that logic, why not throw in a few scenes about the extinction of the Chinese river dolphin?

Choose your battles, and targets, more carefully, friend...

[CynAnne]

Side-stepping the sticky-wicket of religion and it's exploitation (please, let's not get me started...), Chris, I was very amused at the way you've punctured the pseudo-piety and pomposity of 'upstanding' men like Donahue, as well as remark (most snarkily) upon the (un)lamented absence of Messr. Gutfeld from the virtual pages of our HuffPo (but, finding out he's since been relegated to the dank depths of public access...how hilariously apropos)...! ;)

[Brian McCourt]

I attended the premiere of the movie several weeks ago in Jackson Hole. The Director was there and he did say, "he hates organized religion." He also said the line about the fatwa. He said he wanted to destroy the Vatican and specifically wanted to see the Pope in the shot and have the Vatican crash down on the heads on the people...to me it was the most significant comment of the press conference. He went on to say that he wanted to blow up the White House again (as he had in a previous film) and had the JFK aircraft carrier crush the white house specifically so JFK could "return". He said that they tried to destroy religious symbols from behind like the statue of Christ so you don't see his face per se. But the Billboards I have seen around NYC are dead on views of Christ crumbling to the ground. Take it for what it's worth, the movie is entertaining...but there is nothing subtle about the admitted and intentional destruction of only one religion's symbols. Other than that the movie is completely honest.

[Etrusci]

lol