Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig
Wow - - I think they have a point here:
"Other targets are not so fair, as when Borat interrupts a Pentecostal service, just as the sacred gift of tongues is descending on them. Truly this film is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It also reveals just how cowardly the film makers are. They would not have dared to film and ridicule Kazakh Muslims in prayer with their foreheads on the ground and their arses in the air, because it would have led to violence and even murder, not by the Kazakhs themselves, who are far from being fanatics, but by Arabs, Somalis, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, all willing to kill to avenge a slight to the honour of the Prophet. They would probably also have used Baron Cohen's Jewishness as an excuse for some anti-Semitic outrage. They are like that.
The Pentecostals by contrast are peaceable folk, many of them are even pacifists, a doctrine unique to Protestants and Hindus. Have you ever heard of a Muslim pacifist? Or come to that of a Roman Catholic or Greek or Russian Orthodox one? No, the cowardly film makers stick to soft targets. They would not have dared to interrupt a Roman Catholic service at the moment of the elevation of what people like them call the magic biscuit. The Roman Catholic church is a powerful corporation that can exercise great censorship (look what happened in Britain to the TV series Popetown. Twentieth Century Fox would never have been willing to stand up to all the boycotts and picketing that would have ensued. Hollywood has never escaped from the stranglehold of the heirs of the Catholic Legion of Decency. So the cowardly bas*** stick to the Pentecostals; they are a humble and powerless people whom it is safe to kick."
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/...ves/001388.php |
I don't think ignorance can always be called blasphemous. If the film makers knew which group to target, the Pentecostals because they are humble people, in order to pull of their film, that doesn't mean they are cowardly. It just means they were smart in their carnality. And doesn't the part about being more humble and powerless (not in the sense of powerless with God) speak for why they didn't question Borat's motives, sincerely believing that God can do anything? I believe He can do anything, even if someone tries to scam me.
All it means, for me, is that Borat and the filmmakers are ignorant of the truth pertaining to God and have a bad impression of Christianity. I can see that they would, so did Saul.
I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt - carnal and not, necessarily, blasphemous.
How many people have we been around that make fun of how someone worships? We've read about it on this forum. Same thing, IMO. Borat is copying what he has seen just like others, in church, have done. Is that also blasphemy?