As Dan Brown and the New Atheists have done; Roland Emmerich compliments Christianity. Roland Emmerich is the director of the new movie 2012.
I must say that the concept of 2012 AD has been fascinating to me for at least as far back as 17 years when I used to do a lot of reading about the Mayans and even made a t-shirt with the numbers 2012 written out in Mayan characters.
Thus, I have known for a long time that as we approached the year 2012 a lot of attention would be drawn to the New Age movement and the occult—all in various forms. I would not even be the least bit surprised if some Christian or another proclaims that Jesus will return in 2012 because this half a verse says this, that obscure reference implies that, add the distance from the Washington Monument to the closest shoe store with the circumference of the Moon and bada bing—oi vey, I can really hear it already.
If you have seen commercials for this movie there is obviously a lot of destruction in view as was the case with Emmerich’s other movies such as “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”
When asked “Why do you like killing the world?” he stated, “It makes for a good story.”[1] In his stories he has destroyed the White House twice, “I think my favorite in this one is like the White House destruction.”
The huge statue Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil disintegrates as it falls into pieces which was included in the movie, as Roland Emmerich puts it, “Because I’m against organized religion.”[2]
AMEN to that! Although, I wonder why disorganized religion is any better—probably the appeal of lack of accountability.
Well, if he will destroy a statue of Jesus because he is against organized religion we are surely in for quite a ride: watch out EVERY organized religion, the movie 2012 is sure to crush your sacred symbols!
By the way; note the obvious in that regardless of the fictional story’s premise he give voice to his personal prejudice.
The Vatican’s Sistine Chapel takes a hit:
I always try to come up with what makes sense for the story, you know?…And it’s not only about the destruction. It has to kind of stand for something. One of my favorite pieces of art is Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel: … God … reaches out to Adam, and the crack goes through it. It’s just an interesting kind of notion.”
And you thought that this was a natural disaster sort of movie. Nay! This is a theological movie or rather, anti-theological.
Incidentally, I wrote a commentary on “The Creation of Adam.”
Let’s see; that is two for (or against) Christianity and zero for anyone else…what is next?
The Vatican is up again as this time St. Peter’s Basilica not only goes bye-bye but the massive dome crushes a crowd of churchgoers:
Why … don’t [we] have the church fall on people’s head?…The whole Vatican kind of tips and kind of rolls over the people. It said something, because in the story, some people … believe in praying and prayer, and they pray in front of the church, and it’s probably the wrong thing, what they would do in that situation.
Ok, so we are at three anti-Christian and oh yeah, one anti-American. Surely in the name of diversity other religions and governments will get theirs…let us see.
Well, apparently at least one Buddhist monk get it:
Ah, yes, here we go: the Kaaba in Mecca to which Muslims (who are physically capable) are enjoined to travel at least once in their lifetime during the Hajj; what happens to the Kaaba?:
Well, I wanted to do that [destroy it], I have to admit…But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, “I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.” And he was right…We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.
Oh, I see now; this is the Rushdie vs. Brown effect:
For writing a novel about Islam, “The Satanic Verses,” Salman Rushdie gained a death sentence and many people were murdered, hurt and terrorized. For writing a novel about Christianity, “The Da Vinci Code” et al., Dan Brown gained instant celebrity, millions of dollars, thousands of adoring fans and further contracts to write anti-Christian tales.
But what does “in the western world” mean?
It means in nations premised upon and functioning according to Judeo-Christian principles.
But what does “You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart” mean?
It means that you can purposefully set out to make them fall apart which means that you are purposefully destroying them.
Christians may say, “So what? It’s a movie” or “Shame on him” or “I will pray for him” or “I will not go see the movie” or “I will hold up signs in protest” while he still becomes a filthy rich celebrity.
And here I speak as a Judeo-Christian iconoclast. Whilst working at a Roman Catholic church I was once asked to place a vase of flowers before a statue of Mary. I stated, “I can’t do that” to which the response was to just set it down there. I discerned that perhaps they thought I was stating that I lacked some sort of physical capability and so stated, “My Jewish ancestors chose to die before honoring images, I can’t do it” (just in case, I have written about how to deal with the concept of not making/honoring images).
When Jesus stated that the location (in that case a juxtaposition of Jerusalem and Samaria) was not relevant since God is worshipped in spirit I realized that there are no such things as true “sacred sites” (see his conversation in John ch. 4).
Thus, just as Dan Brown compliments Christianity by besmirching it exclusively, Roland Emmerich follows along gaining celebrity and wealth in the rubble of Christian symbols.
Of course, the New Atheists have likewise turned away from the radical Islam to which they each point as the 9/11 fuel that fed the fires of their unbelief. Rather, via a “brilliant” insight by Sam Harris, they chose to sit in the safety and comfort of countries premised upon Judeo-Christian principles and besmirch moderate Christians. Why take on the Ayatollah, Al Qaeda, and extremist Muslims worldwide and do so on their own turf when you can when you can become a wealthy celebrity in Christian countries whilst taking on the true malice and evil of Jerry Falwell, the Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury, etc.? (details here).
Here is what I have to say to Brown, Emmerich, New Atheists, et al.; you are welcome, I love you and may God richly bless you.
[1] Jonathan Crow, “The One Place on Earth Not Destroyed in ‘2012’,” November 3, 2009
[2] Patrick Lee, “What even Roland Emmerich won’t destroy: an Islamic landmark,” Sci Fi Wire, November 2, 2009