August 06
Do we need a Department of Homeland Safety and Sanity?
By Harvey YoderPage:
- 1
- 2
He looked for a crop of justice, and saw them murdering each other. He looked for a harvest of righteousness, and heard only the moans of victims. — Isaiah 5:7 (The Message)
Can you imagine the nation’s outrage if the crescendo of killings that have occurred in places such as Columbine High; Virginia Tech; Phoenix; Aurora, Colo.; and, as of today Oak Creek, Wisc., had been carried out by known members of terrorist organizations?
When it came to fighting terrorism after 9/11, people in the United States didn’t just throw up their hands in helplessness, but immediately went about creating a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and empowered it to do whatever necessary to prevent future disasters of that kind. Many now believe that department has gone too far in creating restrictions and regulations limiting our freedoms and our rights to privacy, but most still support the nation’s response.
So why not more aggressive action to prevent Colorado-style killings?
I hear many pundits, politicians and even preachers simply express feelings of helplessness over this kind of carnage. Seeing it largely as the work of psychotic individuals, they conclude that no amount of additional screening for gun or ammunition purchases — and no stricter laws limiting the kinds of weapons or the size of ammunition clips available — could help prevent these tragedies. It’s a moral and a mental health problem, they say, and the common wisdom is that neither morality nor sanity can be legislated.
While there is some truth to that notion, laws are not only intended to prevent harm but to make a statement about a society’s values. I can’t believe that supporting unlimited access to combat weapons (designed only to kill as efficiently as possible) is consistent with placing a high value on human life. And even if some semi-automatic assault weapons were approved for hunting, do they need to be equipped with a hundred rounds of ammunition?
I doubt the framers of the Constitution had such means of massive destruction in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I believe they would share our outrage over the fact that we are 11 times more likely to be killed by a gun here in the U.S. than in Japan, and six times more likely than in Germany. And they would not attribute that to our being more violent or more deranged than citizens of other nations.
Maybe we need a “Department of Homeland Safety and Sanity” that would be charged with addressing the above issues, along with finding better ways of detecting and treating psycho-terrorists before they engage in their senseless slaughter. The “DHSS” might also want to look at the issue of pornographic violence in media entertainment, such as in the movie being shown on the night of the Aurora horror.
Adam Gopnik recently wrote in The New Yorker, “The killings will go on; the cell phones in the pockets of dead children will continue to ring; and now parents can be a little frightened every time their kids go to a midnight screening of a movie designed to show them what stylized fun violence can be.”
Gopnik isn’t advocating outright censorship, but is appealing for a major shift in our attitudes toward this kind of entertainment, and believes the cost of movie violence has simply become too high.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
You do NOT get to apply the term "pornographic violence in media entertainment" to the Batman film that was being shown in Aurora that night. Yes, as Mennonites we are pacifists, but that film tells the story of a hero, a man who sacrifices everything he knows and loves and goes through intense pain to save the lives of millions. We as followers of Christ may not agree with Batman's methods as a vigilante, but this is a narrative about Good battling Evil, whatever the cost. So by all means, take your label of "pornographic violence" and campaign against Saw, slasher films and torture-porn, but leave the heroes alone. In a media-filled world that celebrates darkness, they are one of the last rays of light that still fight for what is good and true, no matter what it takes.
-
Harvey, how convenient for you to overlook the following in your article: The Fort Hood shooting by Palestinian born U.S. Army Major that killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, the many suicide bombings in the mid east (no guns), the increasing violence against Christians in Muslim dominated countries, the murders of 55 million innocent babies in the womb since approval by the US Supreme Court (no guns) and the Black Mob violence against gay whites in Atlanta, Chicago, Brooklyn, Boston, Seattle and Dallas (mostly knives). Lastly, what have you been doing to curb ongoing violence in the womb?
-
Asher K. Perhaps Mr. Yoder was using the definition I found on dictionary.com: "PORNOGRAPHY: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially those having little or no artistic merit." I would certainly agree that definition describes the vast majority of movies these days, including the one starring your Hero Batman.
-
I'm interested in your response, Asher. I'll admit I haven't seen the film (and likely won't) and perhaps relied too much on Gopnic's analysis.
-
Firstly, I prefer Oxford for the final word on the English language. They define pornography as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement." Also, there's the dictionary's definition, and then there's the social definition; if you Google "porn", I guarantee you'll find something other than a simple lack of "artistic merit".
A term which I think I'd like to look at. I'm an artist, going into the third year of my BFA, specializing in illustration. If anyone asks, I tell them I'm doing my degree in storytelling. With "The Dark Knight Rises", we're looking a film that took years of dedication from a full cast of world-class actors (Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy...the list goes on), and the mind-numbing labour of hundreds of gaffers, cinematographers, writers, cameramen, lighting techs, prop artists, sculptors, concept designers, animators, costumers, coreographers, and composers (too name a few of the jobs involved). And you have the audacity to tell me it has "little or no artistic merit". Go make a movie. Then come back and say that with a straight face.
Mr. Yoder: I would encourage you to watch the film. More than that, I would encourage you to watch all three of them. Experience the character, his full development from a carefree playboy to a self-sacrificing hero, and watch his struggles with power and responsibility. Then judge the film and its impact on society. Far too often we as Christians lay down judgements on things of the world that we don't understand because we've never made an effort to do so. Art tends to fall victim to that rather frequently.
-
Thanks for all of your comments. I actually borrowed the term "pornographic violence" from a piece I had read sometime ago (but can't recall the source) in which the word was used in an analogous sense.
I can certainly understand where you are coming from, Asher, when it comes to considering the artistic merit of a film that I understand to contain "excessively graphic" violence, the term I probably should have used. As with a movie that may represent lots of artistic talent but contain wall-to-wall and "excessively graphic" sex scenes, my decision will most likely be to pass.
Meanwhile, any thoughts on Adam Gopnik’s take on this? Sorry I can't provide you a link here to the article I'm quoting or to his review of the film in the New Yorker magazine.
-
I just posted a comment on Gopkin's blog, under the screen name Vitaeleous. I think there are a lot of issues that have been sucked into this that are being misrepresented. Gopkin has taken this instance of violence and jumped straight to the long-standing American gun control issue. Maybe it's the right place to lay the blame...I'm not sure. But he still states that the movie's content and media like it are to blame, as a "celebration of violence". I will firmly state that this is misguided. I'll re-post part of my comment on Gopkin's writing here: "when you tell me that millions of people across a nation go to a movie to cheer on a hero who sacrifices everything he cares about to save a city from the anarchist terrorists who would destroy it for their own twisted reason, and come to the conclusion that those viewers are being influenced to commit acts of mindless violence...I have to think that you may have it backwards. There was one guy in that theatre shooting innocents; there were three young men in the room who stepped into the line of fire to protect those they loved. Statistically, that film inspired 300% more acts of heroism than acts of terrorism...and it hadn't even started playing yet."
I want people to stop blaming the media for the shooting, especially when blaming the media leads to condemning and demonizing the entire superhero genre. Blame the guy with the gun. Blame whatever misfiring part of his brain made him decide that murder was worthwhile. Pray for other people like him. But don't go shouting that our heroes' stories are responsible for the murders other people commit. All that does is show that we're in denial about who was responsible, that a man CHOSE to kill those people. He wasn't the unwitting victim of media influence; he made a choice. People need to accept that. And...if our children can't tell the difference between reality and imagined worlds, then we need to address that issue. Teach them where to draw that line. But don't blame the media; teach the viewer.
-
It would be interesting to have a conversation comparing a hero who has supernatural powers but who lays it all aside for the sake of saving the world and one who grasps hold of super powers with which he then seeks to save the world by force.
Incidentally, does the latter's saving work inflict harm or death to anyone else in the process? Just curious.
-
The first hero you described is Christ. The second is Batman. You can compare them, but it must be done in context, for they are combating two very different opponents. Christ came to defeat Sin, the wages of which is Death, and defeated them both through Love. The only way for him to defeat Sin was to become it on the cross...but you're a pastor, you know all this. The way for Christ to win the battle for us so that we would never have to fight it ourselves was for him to give up all his power and become the sacrifice. Batman, by comparison, is firstly not the Son of God. He starts off as just another spoiled rich kid in a world where is little to no mention of God. The battle he chooses to fight is a battle against a world of cruelty and madness, of street level crime and the criminal madmen who rule it. In a way, like Jesus became Sin to defeat Sin, Batman becomes a symbol of fear to strike strike fear into the hearts of those who would prey on the fearful. The weapon is chosen for the battle; grace and love were the perfect tools to defeat Sin, and a keen mind, martial training, and the ability to instill fear is the perfect weapon against the cesspool of crime and terror that is the underworld of Gotham City. Does the latter's saving work inflict harm or death? Harm, yes. The single most defining feature of the Batman character is that he will not, under any circumstances, allow himself to take a life. His enemies know this, and use it against him at every turn. But he stands by it. The sheer willpower of his character is incredible, and is really what makes him a superhero. He has no supernatural powers; he's just a man who has honed himself for the battle he chooses to fight. Does his battle cause harm? Yes. Did not Christ's? Was not Death defeated? Demons driven out in terror? Doesn't Satan end up in a fiery pit in the End? All these things came to harm through the saving of us through Christ...but we're okay with it, because they're the bad things. Batman's not going around beating up random people; he's going around stopping the killers that nobody else is capable of dealing with. Nobody can do his job. Nobody but Christ could have saved us from Sin.
-
So we don't need to choose between the Way of Jesus and Batman's way? Both are redemptive?
I guess we'd better take such a view seriously. It is what most Christians believe.
-
That's not what I said at all.
In the fictional world of Batman, there is no saviour. No hope, except in mortal heroes. The operative word there is fictional. We live in a reality where there is salvation, hope, and forgiveness. Are you fighting a personal battle against a criminal underworld with no hope of victory? No? Then embrace the salvation that Christ died for.
People need to understand that fiction is fiction. Often it stands for something else, is used to teach a principle. Jesus used fiction, for crying out loud! We call them parables.
-
Asher, yes, I understand that you use words such as "salvation" and "redemptive" only in their religious sense, and that you would never apply such terms to Batman.
In my understanding of Jesus, he did not compartmentalize in that fashion. When he spoke of salvation, he was talking about what what happens in this physical world, where fictional heros such as Batman portray narratives that we live and die by.
So in my view, we must choose between the Way of Jesus and Batman's way. Because they both claim to describe how we will be saved.
-
If by "saved" you mean "kept alive", then let us address that. Batman has laid his life down countless times for others. He has put himself in harm's way for even his enemies...and that is biblical. "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die." (Romans 5:6-7) Chapter 2:6-7 states also that "God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." (NIV, for those who are wondering).
I need you to clarify what you mean by "narratives that we live and die by". As I understand it at the moment, there's only one book in my life that fits that description, and it's the word of God. I don't "live and die by" the comics I read. I am entertained by them. I am awed by the artistic skill that goes into making them. And I am taught by them, for like the parables of Christ they serve as both metaphors and social foils, revealing truths about society. I heard that one of my parents' profs used to say that "All truth is God's truth." Truth does not come from anywhere else.
-
Asher, seems I should go see the movie. If Batman participates in the salvation of the world in the way Jesus of Nazareth did, then we do not need to choose between the Way of Jesus and Batman's way.
Most of us live and die by narratives embedded in the culture in which we live. Yes, manifestations of those narratives are found in comic books. And yes, those narratives can contain wisdom and truth.
But to get back to the subject of this thread, within our Western culture we are immersed in a narrative that asserts for violence a necessary and beneficial role in saving and restoring life. Many Christians see no conflict between that narrative and the one you affirmed by your testimony because they assume Jesus was concerned primarily with life after death, and not so much with life before.
Does the latest Batman movie help us sort that out?
-
No, the film doesn't help us sort that issue out. It was never meant to. It's a story about a man who does what he can to clean up the city he loves and winds up sacrificing himself for that cause. Period.
Where is the disconnect in our dialogue? I NEVER said that "Batman participates in the salvation of the world in the way Jesus of Nazareth did". Because he doesn't. Batman is NOT the Son of God, unless I missed a keystone issue somewhere back in the 70's. Therefore Batman cannot come CLOSE to offering salvation the way Christ did.
Jesus was incredibly concerned with the lives of people before death. A lot of people miss that point, and figure the whole thing was all about heaven, and the afterlife. But it was more than that. It was healing, cleansing, cultural acceptance, teaching people what it meant to treat their neighbours with kindness and love and respect. One of the things I love about Batman is that he does the same. He preserves life at all costs, whether that means giving a child food and a blanket, or taking a bullet to keep one of his enemies alive. He understands that while violence does not mend wounds, it is the language that he must speak if he is to communicate his message to the scum of Gotham: "You will not be tolerated here". He hates violence; as a child he watched both of his parents murdered in front of him by a man who was just trying to survive on the street. His goal as Batman is to fix the city to a point where crime like that need not exist, to eliminate poverty, repair the wounds left by people preying on the destitute. Watch "Batman Begins", and "The Dark Knight", and then go and see "The Dark Knight Rises". They aren't perfect, but they do the character justice. He's so much more than some dude in a costume who beats people up, but when we get caught up on the violence all of that stops mattering. It shouldn't. It should always matter.
-
Brad Hubert posted this on his site recently; take a look at it. He's got a good spin on some of the stuff we're talking about here. http://www.bradhuebert.com/2012/08/14/movie-geeks-do-you-know-who-your-villains-are/
Comment on the blog post Do we need a Department of Homeland Safety and Sanity?
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download