Independent Sources is purposely silent on the issue of religion. We believe in the individual’s right to believe (or not believe) as they choose as long as the expression of their beliefs doesn’t involve Jihads, car bombings, or releasing nerve gas in Tokyo subways. We also prefer that people do not jam their belief systems down others’ throats (including atheists who sue school districts because they don’t want their kids to have to hear the word “god”). [I should note that I have a minor quibble with the Hari Krishnas of Santa Monica who always seem to want to chant outside of Barney’s Beanery on 3rd St. Promenade when I’m eating there, but that’s topic for another day.]

As opposed to our laissez-faire approach to religion, the Los Angeles Times exhibits what we’ll call a traditionally “liberal”contempt for Christianity. The most recent example is a meandering and somewhat unintelligible commentary called “Hollywood’s Spooky Spirituality,” which you might have thought would be about Katie Holmes rumored conversion to the cult of Scientology. Nope. The “spooky” spirituality in the Times piece appears to be Christianity as all of the negative examples cited had decidedly Christian themes. The article labeled the NBC miniseries “Revelations” ridiculous and called out Black Christian Ministers for their the poor handling of the AIDS epidemic.

“Revelations” might have indeed been ridiculous and some Black Ministers may have mishandled the AIDS epidemic, but is that all we have to say about the Christian religion? They make bad movies? That’s it? While the article does give a nod to another AIDS drama, “Angels in America,” as well as Tim Robbins’ “Dead Man Walking”, the negative Christian overtones are evident. It’s also worth noting that the writer included “Kundun” in the examples of “a more thoughtful (and realistic) take on faith.”

I guess the writer and the LAT hope that Hollywood will stop making movies with Christian themes (are you listening Mel Gibson?) and go back to making good old fashion Buddhist movies because they are so much more thoughtful and realistic.

There was really no reason for the article to have been written or the Times to have run it. If one wanted to say that bad religious-themed movies shouldn’t be made, they should have written a letter to the Times’ Entertainment editor and presumably included “Battlefield Earth” and “The Golden Child” lest someone accidently rent those religious-themed movies expecting thoughtful and realistic takes on faith.

For more of our around the clock coverage of the Los Angeles Times, click “here.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 15th, 2005 at 12:55 am by Insider and is filed under Los Angeles Times, Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.