Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Sunday, February 13, 2011

The Genesis Code?!

I was playing a game on Sporcle just now, when an ad popped up for the "#1 Christian Movie of the Year!," The Genesis Code

Ugh.  Reading the wikipedia entry for it almost made me throw up in my mouth a little.

First of all, I'm sure most of us are in agreement that "Christian Movies" inevitably suck.  And it really has nothing to do with the message.  Lots of good movies have positive and, yes, even Christian messages. And do know what they're called? MOVIES.  Calling something a "Christian Movie?"  That's the advertisers trying to scare everyone away who won't automatically love the movies, solely on the basis of it's "Christian message."  You know... 99% of the population including EVERYONE with any taste in movies at all.

They want only that audience which will sit through two hours of glurgy crap, only to praise it as "uplifting" in the end, because it had something to do with God, Jesus, Miracles, or Faith.  And the more heavy handed the better with these people.  It's like for every poorly delivered line, or question directorial decision all the have to do is say "Jesus" five times, or "Miracles" ten, and somehow they've performed their artistic penance and all is well again.

The people THEY want to watch are the one's who would write a critique of a Miyazaki film, saying how they basically loved every single aspect of it, but in the end couldn't recommend it because it didn't have a "strong enough Christian message to it" or that's "it's spirituality was decidedly non-Christian." (You'd be shocked how often I've seen a review like that on Netflix.)

And did you notice the title? "The Genesis Code?"  I guess that's supposed to be in response to that horribly anti-Christian "DaVinci Code."  This is the M.O. with these people, and with conservatives in general.  Creativity apparently has a liberal bias, because everything they do that is so blatantly "Christian" or "Conservative" is always in response to something SUCCESSFUL that was done by a liberal. "Fahrenhype 9/11," anyone?

And they always love to paint successful movies that have a religious theme, as non-Christian or anti-Christian, don't they?  Think about it: The DaVinci Code, Dogma, The Last Temptation of Christ.... it's absurd.  There is nothing anti-Christian or anti-religious about ANY of those movies! Dogma unequivocally recognizes the existence of God and Angels, as well as the divinity of Jesus Christ!  All of these are central to the story, in fact! The DaVinci Code does the same thing!  And The Last Temptation of Christ?! That's one of the most Christ-affirming movies ever written!  But since it wasn't a word-for-word transcription of the bible? It's somehow satanic.  And do you know WHY? Because to these brain-dead fools, it's a sin to even POSE THE QUESTION, regardless of the fact that you ended up with "right" answer! It doesn't matter that, in the end, these works completely affirm all of these people's core beliefs, differing only on irrelevant details.  To them, the fact that the issue was even explored is a problem.  Why would they let THIS movie off the hook, you ask?  Well: It's a CHRISTIAN movie, isn't it?  They tell you right up front, that they're not REALLY exploring any significant issues related to Christianity.  They're just showing you how wrong the non-believers are.  And that's always OK.

Now, as one of my three heroes once pointed out, "All great works of art have a theme that holds them together." I guess Christian works of "art" need to have three.  This movie's?

1) Evolution vs. creation: A completely invented controversy, invented by funny-mentalists who don't know what the word "metaphor" means. (Or how meaningless the word "literal" is for that matter.)

2) End-of-life decisions: Better pray! Better believe! Better get baptised!  Wouldn't want to burn in hell, would you?  (Can we pull the plug? NO!) (Are they in pain? JESUS WILL COMFORT THEM, DAMMIT!)

3) Discrimination of Christians on the college campus: This is the one that makes me want to vomit.  This is so completely absurd. I would LOVE, absolutely LOOOVE for one of the whack-a-loons to give me one, single, solitary example of "discrimination" that a single Christian has EVER experienced on a college campus in this country. EVER.

This, right here, is the problem with these people's entire philosophy.  They LOVE to play the victim, when they are not only the oppressor, but in fact, in this country, the ONLY oppressor!  Their idea of "discrimination?" NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OPPRESS!  No, actually, even the SUGGESTION that what they do might be oppressive is enough for them to cry "discrimination," even as they write their congressman, or state representative urging them to oppose health care benefits for same-sex couples.

Based on the first "theme," and the movie's title,I'm guessing that what constitutes "discrimination" here consists of some poor Christian who's being "forced" to "give up his beliefs" and accept evolution as a fact, and Genesis as a LIE.  What fucking bullshit.  This is the problem with these people.  This is exemplary of their entire fucking mental illness.  They think that because GENESIS isn't being taught IN THE SCIENCE ROOM as undisputed FACT, that they are being "discriminated against."  (How much you want to bet that one of the characters turns in a paper trying to refute evolution with a summary of the Book of Genesis and gets an "F" on it?)  Never mind that evolution is a THEORY, based on observation.  And teaching evolution is teaching THEORY;  Teaching what other people believe happens, based on observation. Does the STUDENT have to BELIEVE it?  Does the student have to reject Genesis to pass a science class? NO and FUCKING NO!  All the student has to do is demonstrate that s/he UNDERSTANDS the theory!  DUH!  Acceptance and belief in it are not required!  I'm so sick and tired of these fuck-wads that don;'t understand this.  It is not a sin to understand a theory.  Nor does understanding that theory somehow mean that you must accept it any other.  And yes, a refutation of that theory must address the EVIDENCE IT IS BASED ON, rather than be made up of a repetition of your Christian dogma!

For fuck's sake, that does not constitute discrimination!

If you're asked to provide a summary of Darwin's theory and you can't do that, YOU FAIL.  End of story, boo-fucking-hoo!  "Disproving" it by evangelizing about Genesis is no more legitimate an answer than giving a review of a film you just saw, or listing the recipe for your Grandmother's Southern-style potato salad: IT DOESN'T ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.  And if asked to provide an alternative explanation? Requiring that it be evidence-based, as opposed to passionate defense of your FAITH, based solely on DOGMA? Can not possibly be discrimination, unless you believe the entire scientific method to be. And let's face it, if the scientific method, so completely destroys your ability to believe in your dogma?  It's time to reject the dogma, not the scientific method. 

Asking someone to THINK, and teaching them HOW TO is not a discriminatory act.  In fact?  That's exactly what you paid tuition for them to do!  To do otherwise? To teach dogma, that runs contrary to evidence? To tell students to ACCEPT, rather than question?  That IS a discriminatory act.  And any student who experiences THAT? Should demand his tuition be refunded.


  1. "Creativity apparently has a liberal bias, because everything they do that is so blatantly 'Christian' or 'Conservative' is always in response to something SUCCESSFUL that was done by a liberal."

    Haven't seen THE GENESIS CODE, and don't really want to, for pretty much the reasons you've outlined, but there is a solid argument to be made for creativity having a liberal bias. Most creative people are liberals. Liberal creative people who become conservative seem to have all the steam go out of their talent. John Dos Passos began as a brilliant writer; when he became a conservative, he was still trying to do the same sort of thing, but it just didn't work at all. To use a more contemporary example, Dennis Miller used to be a really funny guy. His talent collapsed with his switch to conservatism in so sharp and so complete a manner that it was actually shocking to see.

    Mostly, this is right-brain/left-brain stuff--the same impulses the spur creative thought also help spur liberal thought--but there are always some exceptions. Sal Buscema, one of the great comic artists and the definitive "Hulk" artist, is a political conservative. John Milius is, as well, but though he's given the world such crap as RED DAWN, he's also given it such gems as THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JUDGE ROY BEAN, the ROME series on HBO (in which he participated), APOCALPYSE NOW (he wrote the original screenplay), and CONAN THE BARBARIAN (which, though it suffered as a consequence of Milius's politics, was still a hell of a movie).

    You'll find very few people trashing Clint Eastwood's better work, and he's a conservative, as was his cinematic mentor Don Siegel, who gave us (among other things) INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, DIRTY HARRY, and THE BEGUILED (one of Eastwood's absolute best--and least seen--pictures).

    These are, it's true, exceptions to the rule, but they do exist. Movies are good or they aren't, and which usually doesn't have much to do with their political content.

    ...but there are exceptions to this, as well. FORREST GUMP is a cinematic atrocity, and part of what makes it one is its politics. Slasher films suck, mostly because they're offensively reactionary moral fables. CONAN was hurt because Milius made the villains a group of "free-love" hippy hedonist types, literally acting out the '60s conservative caricature of feasting off the society, and put a thinly-veiled version of the Patty Hearst story at the center of the film (there, though, the merits of the rest of the movie far outweighed any of this). Movies are usually hurt by their politics when they stack the deck in favor of those politics, and that's where the films explicitly marketed as "Christian movies" are particularly bad.

    The big (totally unrelated) movie news of today: This is the 80th anniversary of the screen debut of DRACULA, starring Bela Lugosi, and David F. Friedman, Mighty Monarch of Exploitation cinema, died this morning.

  2. Interesting points.

    I'm with on just about everything, but IMHO, F.Gump sucked far more because of its heavy-handed sentimentality and an absurdly sachrine performance by Hanks, than its politics. But otherwise, yeah, I hear you.

    What the Right will never understand is that Liberals and Moderates and even half-way intelligent Conservtaive appreciate the DEBATE. The like a good conflict. They like the competition of ideas, ideals and norms. Only real idiots actually enjoy being further brainwashed by the same clumsy propaganda that they based their beliefs off of in the first place.

    Just an aside, to anyone [else] who might think I'm just bashing religion here, my wife and I saw "Prince of Egypt" with another couple of staunchly conservative Baptists. We has a great time, loved the movie (it's rather good, actually) and this couple are close friends of ours.

    This is purely about bad cinema. And Cinemarcheologist KNOWS what the hell he's talking about when it comes to movies.

    Thanks for your comment.