The Passion Of The Christ Theology Religion Essay

The Passion Of The Christ Theology Religion Essay For the past 2000 years the Jewish people have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. They have been murdered for countless different reasons over the course of two millennia. The underlying reason for this hatred and racism has always been a belief that their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This racism is literally an ongoing punishment for the supposed sins of the early Hebrews. In at least three of the gospels in the Christian bible there are differing accounts of the roles the early Jews played in the actual trial and execution of Christ. Needless to say, these passages remained controversial for as long as they have been committed to paper. There is speculation as to the validity of their claims as historical proof. A recent film about the final twelve hours of Jesus Christs life and death places these inconsistencies and the mistreatment of the modern Jews back into the spotlight. This alleged literal translation caused many contemporary Jews to cry out in protest over the hard-line depiction in Mel Gibsons new film The Passion of the Christ. Part of the reason this new film is causing so much controversy is because of Gibsons blatant reinterpretations and artistic license taken throughout the film. He tends to go out of bounds with the already tough Jewish public sentiment in regard to Christs death and creates a completely anti-Semitic work. Artistic license is acceptable when creating, but when the claim is made that the work will be a literal translation of the gospels, one looses the ability to fabricate and enters into a new realm of scrutiny. Mel took a copious amount of artistic license with this film, but he does not see it that way. In 1965, the Catholic Church via the pope in the Vatican declared, among other things, that the Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This declaration is formally entitled Vatican II. It exonerates the Jews and condemns all those still seeking Jewish suffering. It directly affects the Catholics, which means that Gibson and his family, who are not Catholics, are not required to abide by these new dictates. Mel, his family and a group of others called The Holy Family, have decided that their particular form of Catholicism needed to be further amended and conservatively redefined. They practice the Trinitine Mass, an extremely conservative form of Christianity based on traditional Catholicism, and they openly reject the changes of Vatican II. In short, they still hold present and past Jews responsible in particular for the death of Christ. Mels father, Hutton Gibson, stated all the popes since John XXIII are illegitimate anti-popes, the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by Jews, and the Holocaust figure of 6 million Jews killed was an exaggeration (Schroth 2). He himself is a full-fledged member of this ultra conservative right wing theology and did nothing but illustrate their prejudiced philosophies to the media and an interested society at large. He is an accurate reflection of the ideals that helped to form the interpretations governing this film. Mels self-professed goals for this film were simple. Gibson claimed that his account would be historically truthful because it would be based on the Gospels (Schroth 3). He was unimpressed with previous attempts to depict the passion in film so he embarked on the journey of telling this story. He wanted to depict the scriptures literally and show the events the way they truly happened. Gibson funded his attempt with his own 25 million dollars and the rest was history. This is an attempt to influence his audience to believe that the sacrifice Christ made for humanity happened the way he and his Holy Family see it. By creating a flashy high-profile film he makes this subject popular and accessible to the secular world as well as the established Christian community. No matter what Gibson claimed to begin with he fell short of his publicly stated intentions. After viewing his finished product one can easily walk away with the notion that this is actually an Anti-Semitic film and not the truthful enlightenment of the Scriptures originally purported. First, because Gibson stated the film would be Scripturaly truthful one must stay alert, knowing that the film starts off on shaky ground. The bible is a huge collection of literal contradictions and potentially inaccurate historical events, the Gospels themselves, written between A.D. 70 and 100, are not reliable historical documents. They contradict one another on detailsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Schroth 3). These inconsistencies can and do become a damning problem when one begins to make claims using the bible as infallible support as Gibson does for the film. Second, people interpret the bibles same passages in many different ways. This is part of the reason that Christianity separated into so many factions at different times throughout history. It is the reason so many people believe they are acting within spiritual grace. While other Christians may think the same action would be deviating from the correct path. These differing interpretations have been a source of constant confusion for two millennia, with no end in sight. So when Gibson makes a movie based on the scripture it could contain almost anything, slanted and yet still hold validity and accuracy. However this does not mean it was the way the true events occurred in history. It means he is trying to make truth from what can be anecdotal metaphors without any real support for actual fact regardless of Scripture. Perhaps most intriguing here is that the bible is actually at odds, within itself, as to the actual culpability of the Jews. The four gospels do not agree with the role the Jews played in Jesus execution, the amount of Jews present during the entire ordeal and ultimately whether or not they are guilty at all. Gibson in his film removes all the bibles messy inconsistencies and forces the Jews to shoulder the responsibility themselves; all the while operating under the pretense that this is the most faithful rendition of Scripture yet. This is a condemnable offence by itself on Gibsons behalf. Gibsons film boasts several inconsistencies with the Bible. This is a rough point for a film, which was purported to be a truthful translation of the Scripture. If we accept the Bible as fact, as faithful Christians do, then we are instantly exposed to many small changes and artistic licensing. These new interpretations singularly may not present an offence, but collectively within the span of a two-hour film become impossible to ignore. Among the more prominent of these points in dispute with the facts as the bible presents them are the inclusion of the devil as a supporting character. He, or she in the film, does not enter even once into Christs final twelve hours at all. No matter how great Satan is as a metaphor for evil in general, he had no place here. The portrayal of Harrod as an unbelievably self-consumed man is acceptable. The problem there was removing a classic sense of blame which can be interpreted as guilt in the role he played in sending Christ to a certain death at the hands of Pilate. He became a nonentity that only slowed the progression of the story. The depiction of the irrational high courts evaluation and sentencing of Christ is not congruent with the scriptures as well. The court actually speaks words directly from scripture but acts in a way that makes them seem to be just a well-dressed addition to the radically insane Jewish mob. There is a thoroughly unbelievable Jewish mob, which defies b oth scripture in most cases and also reality throughout the entire film. With the exception of Jesus inner circle there is no scene in this film that does not feature throngs of Jews acting horribly by spitting, beating and ridiculing Christ. It losses effect after fifteen minutes and just becomes farcical. Jesus and his inner circle are not portrayed as Jews in this film. They read as something else entirely, but the truth is they were Jews and just the sign above Christs cross was not enough to show that. This subtle technique only further pushed the Jews into a corner of singular guilt. This was particularly ridiculous. The outright destruction of the throne and the Jewish temple with the high priests falling all over themselves was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The Bibles account only shows the sacred curtain being ripped down. Again, this is a real strike against the Jews with nothing to back it in terms of scriptural fact. Last, and very important to these minor ar guments was the extreme brutification of the criminal Barrabas. His role in the film is taken out of chronological order from the scriptures in all cases. This would seem minuscule, but it becomes profound, when in the film the Jewish mob chooses a disgusting known killer of Jews over a scourged and mutilated Jesus Christ. As opposed to how it actually takes place in scripture before the whipping. Again, all of these points are inconsistent with the Bible as a fact, and most of them are used to make the Jews look horrible, so that their sole blame can be easily established. The next and possibly most important point illustrating Mels disdain for the Jews is his treatment of the crucifixion, whipping and flogging in the film. In all four of the Gospels there is a description of the torture and execution of Jesus, but in only two of these accounts is he ever flogged. When mention of his flogging appears it is only included as an unelaborated fragment of another sentence. There is substantial doubt as to whether or not the scourging ever happened, let alone the flogging, but this is not how Gibson portrays this event. Gibson uses the bibles lack of detail as a green light to insert his own interpretations as he sees fit. He literally takes the sentence fragment from the two Gospels which mentioning a whipping, and recreates a seriously significant new transgression in Christs final trials. This newfound trial is then portrayed to be even more severe than the actual crucifixion itself, finally becoming Christs horrific true sacrifice. Gibson only had to rei nsert the Jews as the scapegoat decision makers and in the audiences eyes they would automatically take the blame for this horrifying act. This is a very subtle and true masterstroke on Gibsons part and it shows his deliberate intent completely. Gibsons doctoring of the Gospels accounts, reinterpretations of their clear passages and wholesale elaborations on their context becomes damning. It changes the movie from a literal interpretation of the Bible and creates a propaganda piece outlining one fanatical but skillful directors point of view: the Jews are not only responsible for Christs death but are guilty of an execution so brutal and a torture so heinous that it is literally unparalleled in human history. Furthermore, they should still be held accountable even now 2000 years later. Not only are these concepts ridiculous, but they became so polarized before the movie even released, that Gibson, probably realizing he had gone to far, cut out several lines from the film directly accusing the Jews of wrong doing. He knew he had crossed the line and would have an increasingly serious problem on his hands because the script pieces he removed were literal text from the Bible, not speculative fodder like many of his other treatm ents of the events. He must have truly understood that what he was doing was deplorable if he felt that cutting actual, literal text was acceptable when his goal was to make a truthful version of the Gospel in film. In order to understand how deeply Gibsons desire to defame the Jews runs, we need only examine the treatment of one of the movies main characters. Gibsons cruel intent is ironically tied to his saintly portrayal of the man Pontius Pilate. It is first important to note that all four of the Gospels are uniquely in unison on one thing: Pilate killed Jesus. Pilate made it his final decision to crucify Christ. If the whipping and scourging happened at all the way it did in the film, Pilate made that so. A small group of Jews 2000 years ago called for Christs execution, but it was Pilate who ordered it. Pilate is a monster, and he has always carried that reputation so fiercely that it is and has been common knowledge to Christians for 2000 years. It is Pilate who is responsible for Christs demise and not the Jews, but Gibson has another idea. For one very specific reason Gibson sees fit to take extreme artistic license once again with the facts as presented in the Bible and utilizes revisionist history to reinvent the monster Pilate into a good man. In his film Pilate is presented almost as a hero. He is the voice of reason and personifies logic. He is completed with a clichà © good-guy demeanor that is not at all the standard template for this dubious historical figure. Gibson plays him out in the film as a fine, moral Roman Tribune possessed of extraordinary logic and sympathy, struggling with a profound unwillingness to execute Christ amidst throngs of blood-hungry, insane Jews. Gibson manufactured Pilate into deity from an evil human being, and by doing that absolved Pilate of guilt. Pilates absolution was paramount to Gibson because it drives the nail home on the Jews. Gibson has carefully crafted many inconsistencies with the scriptures in order to create an even more terrifying version of Christs ordeals. With Pilate he removed any and all others associated with the wrongful death of Christ so that the burden would fall squarely on the Jews. There literally remains no third party to convolute the picture of now clearly established blame. Finally Gibsons grand-masterstroke can be revealed. The audiences horror with his extreme violent depictions of scourging and crucifixion will subconsciously transform into a basis of hatred against the Jews. This hatred of the character Jews in the film is probably intended to further proliferate a continuing Anti Semitic sentiment in both Christian and global Culture, perpetuating a 2000-year-old racial prejudice Gibson is an experienced master of his craft, which means that he acted deliberately. Nothing could have appeared in a film he produced, directed, financed and helped to write without his knowing and approval of every small detail. He can point no fingers here; there is nowhere to hide. All of his ugly subtleties were in the end, all to apparent to people with an open mind and an understanding of the facts as presented in the Bible. This is Gibsons true intent for this film, not historic truth based on the Gospels at all. Gibsons attempt to slander and blame the Jews either shows a profound lack of understanding or a scalding ignorance of the Christian faith on his part. He thinks he is a very devout Christian, but Christians believe in one very important thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he sacrificed himself to atone for all of mans sins. Gibsons film does not reflect this ideal. He blames the Jews directly, but they could not be directly responsible at all. This shows either his inability to accept the fact, or just a simple prejudice. The Jews are not guilty because all mankind is guilty. A true follower of the teachings of Christ knows this and acts accordingly. After all, Jews helped Christ to fulfill the prophecies needed in order to die for all mankinds sin. This could serve to shed a fresh, new, and positive light on the Jews; in the end they are Gods chosen people. Gibsons extremist mincing throughout the film works against his established intentions. His interpretations are shallow and transparent. They clearly show his prejudice towards the Jewish people, and he can only come off as an ugly person in the end. Intelligent people and open-minded Christians will not be swayed by the coercive piece of propaganda that The Passion Of The Christ is. It will insult them and their intelligence. Gibsons only stroke of brilliance involved with this project was displaying that he understood the psyche of the religious-right in the US. He knew how to strike up the publicity on this film. Not only did he get the hard-core right wing Christian community to back it without question, he drummed up an overwhelming amount of raw curiosity throughout the secular world. His story, the publicity, the controversy, the disagreements, the inconsistencies, earned him notoriety, acclaim and over 300 million dollars. That money may be the only true success he earns with this film, because anyone ignorant of Christs story will not be converted by this nonsense. They will just be confused about how his portrayal of Jesus could measure up to the man so many people worship as God.

Joseph Heller

In his 1961 piece, Joseph Heller in a subtle way brings an exclusive attention of the readers to the experiences of the world wars to the soldiers. Heller uses the Second World War and John Yossarian, the protagonist as case studies in this milieu. The story transmitted in a third person narrative illuminates the experiences that make Yossarian afraid to continue serving as a soldier. It remains an enlightening piece that divulges the inner spirit of a soldier when masked with fear, more so having seen his or her colleagues die dreadfully. As the narration commences, the story is told within the hospital buildings where Yossarian is hospitalized. The doctors examining him are puzzled with his condition, which means that he would be pretending. They make a determination that if he would be jaundiced, they would treat him, but if not, they discharge him. Explicitly, Yossarian is faking sickness, but in an intelligent manner. It seems that in his mind, the hospital is safe to take solace since liver problems take time to treat. Nurse Duckett signs a note to give him some pills, but interestingly, the liver pain had healed, yet no doctor realized it. Yossarian is the center of the story and everything is deflected from his perspective. Innately, he is determined to remain safe at all times. However, the story is not told in a chronological order, and therefore, the readers must collect all the jaunts together to comprehend what it all implies. It uses flashbacks and presages to depict what happens. For instance, Yossarian is troubled with the memories of Snowden case where a soldier was killed awfully, and as a result, he has lost the aspiration to continue participating in the war. He is more perturbed and feels weak, something that happens with many soldiers on the battlefield. The same applies to other characters such as Dunbar who similarly stay with him in the ward. He wants to stay longer in the hospital by engaging in various boring activities to pass time. Indeed, the hospital setting has become a better place for them. Yossarian has made up his mind to remain in the hospital for the remaining time of the war, and writes a letter to different people known to him, but never tells them the reasons. Having realized that being insane can work for him, he pretends to be insane in order to be discharged from the military service. He is surprised that by claiming that he is insane is a proof that he is actually sane. The readers can see the way a soldier suffers emotionally in the military camp, even if expected to be strong.In conclusion, the story portrays the diverse points of views that the readers can relate to. It gives a pointer to the minds of the characters that depict the inner world of a soldier. It carries the audience with mixed reactions while interacting with the events. Certain events are funny, while others elicit pity. Yossarian is shaken by the storms of the experiences of the war and uses numerous tactics to get himself out of the military service. For instance, he fakes his prolonged stay in the hospital. When he also tries to pretend to be insane, he is openly caught. Rightly, the story compels the readers to see much inside a soldier's heart than just what is seen from outside.

The Power of Power by James March

He explored factors that Influenced decision making, such as risk orientation, leadership and the ambiguity of the present and the past. March Is also known for the concept of ‘The Power of power. † March wrote â€Å"The Power of Power back in 1966. I believe that the point March is trying to make is quoted at the end of his article stating that â€Å"Power is a disappointing concept. It gives us surprisingly little purchase In reasonable models of complex systems of social choice. † (Classics Text by Sheriffs 2011, pig 318). March requires and can make effective use of such a concept.What March is trying to say is that power is too broad a concept for our empirical understanding at this point and until we can define every variable involved in the exercise of power, power cannot be empirically defined. The Oxford dictionary defines ‘power' as: The ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise have done. Power is often classified into fi ve principal forms: force, persuasion, authority, coercion, and manipulation. March focused on a specific concept of power; which are used in theories that have the following general assumptions: 1.The choice mechanism involves certain basic components (individuals, groups, roles, behaviors, labels, etc. ). 2. Some amount of power is associated with each of these components. . The responsiveness (as measured by some direct empirical observation) of the mechanism to each individual component is monotone increasing with the power associated with the individual component. In the article, March starts out with the question: To what extent is one specific concept of power useful in the empirical analysis of mechanisms for social choice?March proposes the reader to take note of three variations of power to give a better idea of the uses of power that are being focused on. March then goes on to examine six different classes of models of social choice that are generally linked with hat at l east one substantial group of students means by ‘social power. ‘ March begins talking about three approaches by discussing the advantages and limitations of each approach when compared to the study of power used in . Recent efforts.The recent efforts were sought to illustrate the range of possible uses of the concept of power and its empirical capabilities: The three approaches are: experimental studies, community studies, and institutional studies. Experimental Conceptual Basis: The experimental studies of power are generally Newtonian. The studies are ultimately concerned with the power of one individual over another. Generally speaking, the greater the power of the individual, the greater the changes are induced, and the more successful the resistance to change.Procedures: Determine power by some a priori measure or experimental manipulation, use a relatively simple force model to generate hypotheses concerning differences in outcomes from different treatments, and co mpare the observed results with predicted results. Results: 1) This permits us to reject certain kinds of social choice models for certain kinds of situations because it allows us to vary power systematically or arbitrarily in an experimental setting (within limits). ) The effectiveness of a priori measurement is highly variable in producing behavior change. Community Conceptual basis: Typical community studies. Newtonian, two laws that define community study: 1 . Social choice will be a predictable extension of past choices unless power is exerted on the choice†¦ And 2. When power is exerted, the assumes that decisions made by the community are a function of the power exerted on the community by various power holders. The studies are analytical by observing the net effects of decision making by the individual.It's meaningful to aggregate resource power, position power, and skill power into a single variable. Procedures: Ask individuals in the community to rate the power of oth ers in the community or define a model relating power to decisions, observe, and estimate the power of the individual compared to the model. 1) Most people in most communities are essentially powerless. Latent control is rarely exercised. 2) Different individuals are powerful with respect to different things, but there are also general leaders.Institutional Conceptual basis: Systematic attempts to derive quantitative indices of power from n analysis of the structure of the institution to determine the power structure within them. Procedures: Construct an empirical index of power, make assumptions about the relation between the empirical and a priori measures, and test the consistency of the empirical results with the priori measures. Results: Riskier attempted to apply the basic Shapely-Suburb measure to the French assembly but was unsuccessful.The data didn't support the thesis and the approach was abandoned almost entirely. As noted earlier, March moves on to the six types of mode ls to evaluate the insistence of the models with available data and to consider the problem of power associated with them. Chance Models: Choice is random and independent of power. It fails because it relies on stability of power over time and subject matter. It cannot account for power derived from personal attributes. Models can have power manipulated resulting in systematic variations.The models are naive yet hard to completely reject. Basic Force Models: Empirical knowledge is easier to find here but they also assume stability of power and that power exerted equals total power, leaving no room for stored or unused power. Force Activation Models: Assumes that power is a potential for determinative action and that the exercise of power involves some method of activation. Empirical results for these models take you in circles when trying to make predictions. Force Conditioning Models: Assumes that apparent power leads to actual power. Success improves reputation, reputation improve s success. † People have power because they have been observed to have power. Models can't empirically account for connections to power. Force Depletion Models: Assumes that power is a resource, and when exercised, it is depleted. These models are the least useful of the three models. Process Models: Class of social choice systems in which power measurement will be unstable and useless. These models are too simple and an empirical understanding requires more variables.These models are sets of statements about the way in which individual choices are transformed into social choices and are used in hopes of deriving some empirically meaningful predictions. March refers to power as being a major explanatory concept in the study of social choice. He then goes on to say that power is used in studies of relations among nations, community decision making, business behavior, and small roof discussion; partly because it conveys overtones of cynicism of â€Å"Realistic† Realistic is defined as political realism, which refers to politics based on power and practical and material factors.March concludes his article by saying that the power of power depends on the extent to which a predictive model requires and can make effective use of such a concept. This depends on the type of system that is being confronted. March adds that power is probably a useful concept for many short term situations and that power is probably not a useful concept for long run situations involving problems of component overload and under comprehension. In summary, the concept of power has not filled the central role in the study of politics which many pioneers hoped it would.It has proved much easier to believe generally that politics is about power. I read on how March worked with frequently collaborated with Johan P. Olsen. One question I would like to ask is how was the experience of working alongside Olsen? Did you two often bump heads or were you always able to see eye to eye? Was it difficult teaming up against the strong individualism that underlies much political ND sociological theory; especially the view that institutions merely embody existing patterns of interest or group power?Youthfulness:http://www. Youth. Com/watch? Youth Overview: Speech given on September 7, 2011 at Stanford University. Dry. March highlights one of the most dangerous areas of institutional/personal bias drawing only from â€Å"Western constructs† in information-gathering and problem- definition. In an increasingly global and strategically dynamic world, this is suicide for many businesses. Wisped (Classics of Organizational Theory Text by Sheriffs, Tot, Gang 2011). Youthfulness:http://www. Youth. Com/watch?

Preparing an Emergency Operational Plan for the Ashford University Free Essay Example, 2500 words

Further, the planning committee must consider the available facilities and equipment that required mitigating the varying nature of emergency situations within the respective jurisdiction. Since the emergency operations plan is a public document it must not overlook the legal aspects of the emergency operations. (Perry Lindell, Risk assessment and prioritizing mode of action is another important element of the emergency operations plan. The planning committee must consider the various factors that may lead to a particular incidence, for example, the geographical and the climatic features of a place are one important determinant of bringing natural disasters; and then there is a manmade crisis that usually associated to occupational hazards (Perry Lindell, 2006). The main objectives of preparing an emergency operations plan for the Ashford University are summarized below: The activation of an emergency operations plan refers to bringing its policies into effect. The termination of emergency plan means to bring things back to normal. Both, the activation and the termination are important elements of an emergency plan. Communication and information are the two prerequisites of activation and termination of the emergency plan. We will write a custom essay sample on Preparing an Emergency Operational Plan for the Ashford University or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page