Holy week media programmes

Manach

For the season that it is, any interesting related religious programming being shown?
The National Geographic channel are running promos for "Killing Jesus"
- http://killingjesus.nationalgeographic.com/
which on this side of the Atlantic is on Sun 29th @ 9pm.

hinault

From another part of the Bible, Monday 30th March at 20.30hrs, BBC drama series The Ark.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/writersroom/entries/7de4728b-96bc-4876-bd03-92e9cfa88a3a

Turtwig

Manach wrote: »

The National Geographic channel are running promos for "Killing Jesus"

one has to wonder if they'd use a similar title if it was the prophet involved.

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

one has to wonder if they'd use a similar title if it was the prophet involved.

Well, that would have to be a radically different programme. The crucifixion is a pivotal event in Christianity, and a programme called "Killing Jesus" could be (and I think in fact is) an entirely respectful exploration of the event, the lead up to it, the immediate consequences, its signficance for Christians, it's significance in world history, etc.

Whereas the prophet Muhammad died in the bosom of his family, of natural causes, at an advanced age. So a programme called "Killing Muhammad" would have to be something very different, not at all analogous to "Killing Jesus". It's likely that the use of the Prophet's name in the title would be the least of the grounds for offence that it might contain.

edward2222

Manach wrote: »

For the season that it is, any interesting related religious programming being shown?

Station of the cross is the most common thing...

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that would have to be a radically different programme. The crucifixion is a pivotal event in Christianity, and a programme called "Killing Jesus" could be (and I think in fact is) an entirely respectful exploration of the event, the lead up to it, the immediate consequences, its signficance for Christians, it's significance in world history, etc.

Whereas the prophet Muhammad died in the bosom of his family, of natural causes, at an advanced age. So a programme called "Killing Muhammad" would have to be something very different, not at all analogous to "Killing Jesus". It's likely that the use of the Prophet's name in the title would be the least of the grounds for offence that it might contain.

I agree but. . .:p
I kind of meant if all others things being more or less the same as they are now, Mohammed had left this mortal coil in a similar vein to Jesus. Would they have gone with such a title?

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

I agree but. . .:p
I kind of meant if all others things being more or less the same as they are now, Mohammed had left this mortal coil in a similar vein to Jesus. Would they have gone with such a title?

Quite possibly. An Islam based on a repudiation of force and am embrace of weakness would obviously be very different from contemporary Islam. But presumably if the killing of the Prophet were a central event in the Islamic story, a work entitled "killing Muhammad" would not be inherently offensive.

A more relevant question for us, perhaps, is whether, if Christians had treated Muslims in a more authentically Christian way in the past, would Muslims be so insecure and so sensitive to real or imagined insult from Westerners today?

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Quite possibly. An Islam based on a repudiation of force and am embrace of weakness would obviously be very different from contemporary Islam. But presumably if the killing of the Prophet were a central event in the Islamic story, a work entitled "killing Muhammad" would not be inherently offensive.

A more relevant question for us, perhaps, is whether, if Christians had treated Muslims in a more authentically Christian way in the past, would Muslims be so insecure and so sensitive to real or imagined insult from Westerners today?

I agree that it's much harder for a religion to get all sensitive about blasphemy when it views the central act of history as being a piece of blasphemy that God planned Himself. After all, you really can't get much more blasphemous than nailing God to a cross!

Would Islam be so sensitive about blasphemy today were it not for the way Christians have treated them in the past? Possibly, given Middle Eastern notions of honour, shame, and saving face.

Manach

Nick Park wrote: »

Would Islam be so sensitive about blasphemy today were it not for the way Christians have treated them in the past? Possibly, given Middle Eastern notions of honour, shame, and saving face.

Ah there is a vast volumes of historical books and debate on the medieval and colonial periods that might challenge that rather, facile, opinion on that relationship,

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

I agree that it's much harder for a religion to get all sensitive about blasphemy when it views the central act of history as being a piece of blasphemy that God planned Himself. After all, you really can't get much more blasphemous than nailing God to a cross!

Would Islam be so sensitive about blasphemy today were it not for the way Christians have treated them in the past? Possibly, given Middle Eastern notions of honour, shame, and saving face.

Take your point, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all middle eastern religions, aren't they? And they all have pretty similar notions of what constitutes blasphemy.

My gut feeling is that, within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world, what's considered an appropriate response to blasphemy is more a product of broader culture and history than of narrower theology or doctrine. And each of these traditions will manifest a different response to blasphemy in different circumstances or in different times.

It's worth noting that, however disrespectfully you speak of the Prophet, as far as Islam is concerned that's not blasphemy, or at least not directly; you can only blaspheme against God. Disrepect for the Prophet is generally considered an insult to Islam and, therefore, to Muslims, and it's usually assumed (these days, often correctly assumed) that the insult is deliberate. And of course how we respond to deliberate insults is culturally-driven. Christianity teaches us to turn the other cheek, but Western culture and values and, all to frequently, actions generally do not reflect that.

Matters are compounded when the insult is offered by someone perceived to be already in a dominant position (as the West is, militarily and economically, vis-a-vis the Muslim world, and vis-a-vis Muslim minorities in Western countries). In that context the insult become bullying, and should we be surprised if people feel they should "stand up to bullies"? It's pretty much what we teach our own children in the Western world, isn't it?

I think the fundamental problem here is the myth of redemptive violence; the belief that we can right a wrong through beating the living snot out of someone. If the crucifixion teaches us anything, it teaches us the hollowness of that myth, and yet it's deeply embedded in Western culture and values (and practices). As Christians, I don't think we do ourselves any favours by denouncing faith in this myth, when manifested by Muslims, if we are not at least as vehement in denouncing it when manifested by Christians or westerners.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Take your point, but Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all middle eastern religions, aren't they? And they all have pretty similar notions of what constitutes blasphemy.

They might have similar notions of what constitutes blasphemy, but very different ways of reacting to it.

Judaism, of course, has been greatly affected by 2000 years of existing as a minority. Blasphemy, therefore, is seen as something primarily within the Jewish community (you don't tend to go out on the streets with placards proclaiming 'Death to Blasphemers' when you're trying to keep your heads down and recover from the last pogrom those blasphemers launched against you).

Christianity certainly began in the Middle East, but it is hardly a Middle Eastern religion. The African theologian, Lamin Sanneh, has done some great work in this field concerning the 'translatability' of Christianity compared to Islam.

Islam is an Arabic faith, even when practised elsewhere. The Qur'an is read in Arabic, pilgrimages to Arabia are a huge element of the faith, and its adherents often wear desert attire even in cold climates.

Christianity, however, lends itself much more readily to cultural translation. Even the original manuscripts of the Gospels did not, for the most part, record the words Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but only translations into Greek. You can be a faithful Christian without ever knowing Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek (well, except 'Amen') without once considering going on a pilgrimage, and you tend not to see Christians in Finland wearing Palestinian clothing.

So, it is hardly surprising that the 'outraged and dishonoured' reaction to blasphemy is much more prevalent among the adherents of Islam than it is among Jews or Christians.