<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Nov 27 2007, 09:09 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Nov 27 2007, 09:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here we go again - please note that these are Catholics and secular. Beat that!
Catholic Secular Forum has condemned Shekhar Kapur's magnum opus movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, for its anti-Catholic stance
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"It is an insidious direct attack on Catholicism by demonizing all those who profess the faith. It is also divisive in nature, reawakening the Catholic-Protestant divide. Catholic holy articles like the Rosary beads or the Crucifix are used disrespectfully and as Church-bashing imagery to show the fall of the Roman Catholic empire, with the clergy retreating quietly, after the defeat of Spain by England.
2) The movie begins by describing Philip II, as the 'Catholic King of Spain' and depicts him as a ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon. The commentary mentions, he "plunged Europe into holy war," and "only England stands against him." The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.
3) Elizabeth II paints everything bad, evil and corrupt as ultimately the bitter fruit of the Catholicism, while Protestantism deals with values related to the conscience, contemplative prayer, religious freedom & heroic resistance to Catholic oppression. "I will not punish my people for their beliefs - only for their deeds", Elizabeth says, or again, when people advised her to 'Kill off all the Catholics,' she is known to have said, 'No, we need to be tolerant.', who is Protestantism personified. It conveniently skirts the plight of Catholics during her reign or under Kings Henry VIII and Edward, before and after her.
4) Catholics are those who chant out loud, usually in spooky Latin, read from prayer books, clutch rosary beads, wear crucifixes and surround themselves with clerics bestowing church sanction on sinister goings-on. Worst of all, it's Catholics who have religious ideas and motivations. The Protestants shown as are the morally upright & the human rights abuses of the Elizabethan era are unseen. The faults of Queen Elizabeth are glossed over, such as pushing through the Act of Uniformity through Parliament, outlawing the Catholic Mass and imposing compulsory attendance at Anglican services. In this version of history, the hosts of Catholics martyred under her are all traitors and conspirators."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]75643[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Indian christians are a huge embarassment to themselves. They know nothing about European (English, Spanish, Catholic, Protestant) history apparently - unless they're taught versions favourable to themselves, including catholic apologetics (or the protestant kind, as the case may be). See example of ridiculous catholic apologetics taught to ignorant Indian christos in Indian schools - stories <i>about the UK</i>, getting worked up over a place and history that is totally unrelated to Indians anyway:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh puhleese. "The true queen of England"? And who is to decide - the Vatican which isn't even located in England????? The English declare that Elizabeth is the queen. But Indian christo brainwashed by catholic education knows better!
Oh and get this: "King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death" - yes, of course foreign tyrant was following a "just cause" in England. Guess the loser Indian catholic weeps huge tears for the fate of England when hearing of how Guy Fawkes failed as well.
Really, I'd almost be embarassed for these Indian christians of the catholic cult - but as they're not reflective of my community (Hindus), I think they're just funny. Someone has to post that Catholic Secular Forum comment to some British or even Anglican forum or something to show the British what kind of confused history the Indian catholic church is teaching its sheep. They'll probably roll over laughing or be shocked about such travesty of their history.
No time to go into details, but:
All of Protestant England was dead-set against being crushed by what was popularly called the "Spanish Heel" that was to inevitably ensue upon "Catholic tyrant" Mary's marriage to Phillip of Spain. Even the marriage was considered the greatest threat and treason (and rightfully so: it was the holy church's attempt to get England back with a HUGE vengeance). Mary - "Bloody Mary" - was highly inimical to the Protestant population and had large numbers massacred for their 'treason' against "ze one true faith".
Ever since Protestantism (Anglican church) started in the UK, the chant was always an "end to Popery" and the "evil Papists". They wanted nothing more but to be free of the Vatican, and catholics were known to be loyal only to their faith which meant complete allegiance to the Pope in Rome for fear of hell otherwise. It was incumbent on the catholic population to resist the protestant rule of their country, to try to regain power (which means reinstall Vatican's power in England) and to thereafter end the existence of any protestantism there.
The Protestants referred to the crucifixes worn by Catholics as "idolatry", which going by all descriptions of 'regularly kissing the crucifix' et al, certainly was. When Edward (or whatever - I mean to refer to Henry VIII's son) became king, Catholics were banned from public display of their "papist idolatry". The Protestants did indeed make fun of catholic superstitions. (But the Anglican English, during Napoleonic times at least, did wear crosses about their necks....)
Latin mass was banned, even the Credo had to be in English (the exact opposite of the Vatican's previous imposition), so the catholics conducted these in private.
As bad as all that suppression of catholicism was, the papists were indeed traitors ready to sell their nation of England to Spain (to any catholic nation, but Spain was Numero Uno at the time). It was their first and foremost religious duty. Guy Fawkes' gunpowder treason plot was just one in a long line of catholic attempts at treacherous terrorism to end Protestantism in the UK.
The defeat of Spain by England is indeed regarded as a fundamental turning point in Protestant/English history. Spain was THE POWER at the time - they were the Vatican's most formidable force in Europe. The Spanish were ousted from the Netherlands by a war that is still recalled as one of the most important ones the Dutch won. The Dutch <i>Catholics</i> still rejoice that they won over the "Spanish Catholic tyrants" and the Spanish oppression. (The Belgian Catholics don't rejoice of course, because they sided with Spain and that's why the Dutch Catholics became separated from their brethren on the other side of the border. Even today in Germany and NL, with the encouragement of the holy church, the religiously-Catholic population is reproducing much faster than the Protestant side - though seculars don't see the worry in it. But the point is that majority-Protestant countries like DE and NL would become majority-Catholic eventually or at least break even - unless islam changes the demographics first.)
In any event, Shekar Kapur didn't invent any of the Protestant-Catholic dynamics in that movie he was paid to direct. In fact, I doubt he even wrote the screenplay. In the west, directors are usually hired to <i>just direct</i> a movie. Sometimes they get fired mid-way if they have creative disputes/differences with the writers or producers.
Directors in the west don't even always work with the actors - there are often Dramatic Directors or the equivalent to do that. In America, plot-outlines/screenplays are written first, then they're proposed to studios; if/when the project is greenlighted, the studios decide who they will hire as director based on the budget they allocate for the movie - and this director mostly doesn't even get say in the Final Cut. (Only a handful of directors have Final Cut/Edit rights, which now includes Peter Jackson after LOTR. I doubt Shekar Kapur is one of them.) Not many an American director has written the story AND produced it AND directed it and everything. Again, I doubt Shekar Kapur played such a role in the making of Elizabeth.
So blaming Shekar Kapur for directing a movie where (1) (most likely) someone else's story and screenplay is used and (2) which appears - from the above whine by the Catholic Secular Forum of India - to be quite faithful to the situation in England at the time is just getting too ridiculous.
Elizabeth wasn't a great friend to the catholics, because she had learnt to be wary of them. But she was better than the anti-catholic Edward and the fanatic catholic tyrant Mary who went and hunted down the protestants in England.
And as for uniquely blaming the "Elizabeth" movie for being "anti-catholic" - what a joke. There's barely a single historical novel by an historical Englishman (Anglican) that doesn't have something to say about the Papists. Not just books either:
- BBC documentaries - like the one on Mary alleged mother of alleged jesus (some uncomfortable views about the 'holy virgin' as per christian theologians aired in there)
- historical dramas. See for instance UK's 6 hour miniseries Ivanhoe. The christians there are all catholic as it's set in the 11th century, and the really faithful/religious/practising christians among them are all (1) traitors to England; (2) torturers, madmen, anti-semitic and the witch-burning kind.
I wonder why the loser Indian christo clique of the catholic-cult variety hasn't protested to such programs? These are historically accurate when it comes to their portrayal of christoterrorism, so perhaps that's why the Indian christos have remained silent. Or perhaps Indian christos just have never read historical books or novels written in protestant parts of Europe, nor watched documentaries or programs made in such countries.
Or maybe Indian christos just like the sound of their own whining voices.
They should be forced to watch all this stuff. That will quickly cure many of them of catholicism.
Indian catholics should get themselves an education for a change and not accept the brainwashing and faux-history they learn at their religious institutions. Oh wait, forget that - they appear to be beyond hope: so many of them think Latin is a "christian" language! <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> And I remember some Indian christian mentioned here at IF advocating that Indian christians name their kids 'Martin' (or a translation thereof into an Indian language)! <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <i>Martin</i>! Which they themselves admitted meant "gift from Mars" (=Roman God). Hysterical!
*That's* all they know. All the more reason never to study in a catholic school in India (in case the nuns hadn't already scared the bejeebus into ya).
Catholic Secular Forum has condemned Shekhar Kapur's magnum opus movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, for its anti-Catholic stance
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"It is an insidious direct attack on Catholicism by demonizing all those who profess the faith. It is also divisive in nature, reawakening the Catholic-Protestant divide. Catholic holy articles like the Rosary beads or the Crucifix are used disrespectfully and as Church-bashing imagery to show the fall of the Roman Catholic empire, with the clergy retreating quietly, after the defeat of Spain by England.
2) The movie begins by describing Philip II, as the 'Catholic King of Spain' and depicts him as a ferocious, fanatical Catholic swinging his rosary like a weapon. The commentary mentions, he "plunged Europe into holy war," and "only England stands against him." The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.
3) Elizabeth II paints everything bad, evil and corrupt as ultimately the bitter fruit of the Catholicism, while Protestantism deals with values related to the conscience, contemplative prayer, religious freedom & heroic resistance to Catholic oppression. "I will not punish my people for their beliefs - only for their deeds", Elizabeth says, or again, when people advised her to 'Kill off all the Catholics,' she is known to have said, 'No, we need to be tolerant.', who is Protestantism personified. It conveniently skirts the plight of Catholics during her reign or under Kings Henry VIII and Edward, before and after her.
4) Catholics are those who chant out loud, usually in spooky Latin, read from prayer books, clutch rosary beads, wear crucifixes and surround themselves with clerics bestowing church sanction on sinister goings-on. Worst of all, it's Catholics who have religious ideas and motivations. The Protestants shown as are the morally upright & the human rights abuses of the Elizabethan era are unseen. The faults of Queen Elizabeth are glossed over, such as pushing through the Act of Uniformity through Parliament, outlawing the Catholic Mass and imposing compulsory attendance at Anglican services. In this version of history, the hosts of Catholics martyred under her are all traitors and conspirators."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]75643[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Indian christians are a huge embarassment to themselves. They know nothing about European (English, Spanish, Catholic, Protestant) history apparently - unless they're taught versions favourable to themselves, including catholic apologetics (or the protestant kind, as the case may be). See example of ridiculous catholic apologetics taught to ignorant Indian christos in Indian schools - stories <i>about the UK</i>, getting worked up over a place and history that is totally unrelated to Indians anyway:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope and other Catholic leaders regard Mary of Scots, as the true Queen of England, so King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death and overthrowing Elizabeth's court.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh puhleese. "The true queen of England"? And who is to decide - the Vatican which isn't even located in England????? The English declare that Elizabeth is the queen. But Indian christo brainwashed by catholic education knows better!
Oh and get this: "King Philip was given the just cause of avenging the queen's death" - yes, of course foreign tyrant was following a "just cause" in England. Guess the loser Indian catholic weeps huge tears for the fate of England when hearing of how Guy Fawkes failed as well.
Really, I'd almost be embarassed for these Indian christians of the catholic cult - but as they're not reflective of my community (Hindus), I think they're just funny. Someone has to post that Catholic Secular Forum comment to some British or even Anglican forum or something to show the British what kind of confused history the Indian catholic church is teaching its sheep. They'll probably roll over laughing or be shocked about such travesty of their history.
No time to go into details, but:
All of Protestant England was dead-set against being crushed by what was popularly called the "Spanish Heel" that was to inevitably ensue upon "Catholic tyrant" Mary's marriage to Phillip of Spain. Even the marriage was considered the greatest threat and treason (and rightfully so: it was the holy church's attempt to get England back with a HUGE vengeance). Mary - "Bloody Mary" - was highly inimical to the Protestant population and had large numbers massacred for their 'treason' against "ze one true faith".
Ever since Protestantism (Anglican church) started in the UK, the chant was always an "end to Popery" and the "evil Papists". They wanted nothing more but to be free of the Vatican, and catholics were known to be loyal only to their faith which meant complete allegiance to the Pope in Rome for fear of hell otherwise. It was incumbent on the catholic population to resist the protestant rule of their country, to try to regain power (which means reinstall Vatican's power in England) and to thereafter end the existence of any protestantism there.
The Protestants referred to the crucifixes worn by Catholics as "idolatry", which going by all descriptions of 'regularly kissing the crucifix' et al, certainly was. When Edward (or whatever - I mean to refer to Henry VIII's son) became king, Catholics were banned from public display of their "papist idolatry". The Protestants did indeed make fun of catholic superstitions. (But the Anglican English, during Napoleonic times at least, did wear crosses about their necks....)
Latin mass was banned, even the Credo had to be in English (the exact opposite of the Vatican's previous imposition), so the catholics conducted these in private.
As bad as all that suppression of catholicism was, the papists were indeed traitors ready to sell their nation of England to Spain (to any catholic nation, but Spain was Numero Uno at the time). It was their first and foremost religious duty. Guy Fawkes' gunpowder treason plot was just one in a long line of catholic attempts at treacherous terrorism to end Protestantism in the UK.
The defeat of Spain by England is indeed regarded as a fundamental turning point in Protestant/English history. Spain was THE POWER at the time - they were the Vatican's most formidable force in Europe. The Spanish were ousted from the Netherlands by a war that is still recalled as one of the most important ones the Dutch won. The Dutch <i>Catholics</i> still rejoice that they won over the "Spanish Catholic tyrants" and the Spanish oppression. (The Belgian Catholics don't rejoice of course, because they sided with Spain and that's why the Dutch Catholics became separated from their brethren on the other side of the border. Even today in Germany and NL, with the encouragement of the holy church, the religiously-Catholic population is reproducing much faster than the Protestant side - though seculars don't see the worry in it. But the point is that majority-Protestant countries like DE and NL would become majority-Catholic eventually or at least break even - unless islam changes the demographics first.)
In any event, Shekar Kapur didn't invent any of the Protestant-Catholic dynamics in that movie he was paid to direct. In fact, I doubt he even wrote the screenplay. In the west, directors are usually hired to <i>just direct</i> a movie. Sometimes they get fired mid-way if they have creative disputes/differences with the writers or producers.
Directors in the west don't even always work with the actors - there are often Dramatic Directors or the equivalent to do that. In America, plot-outlines/screenplays are written first, then they're proposed to studios; if/when the project is greenlighted, the studios decide who they will hire as director based on the budget they allocate for the movie - and this director mostly doesn't even get say in the Final Cut. (Only a handful of directors have Final Cut/Edit rights, which now includes Peter Jackson after LOTR. I doubt Shekar Kapur is one of them.) Not many an American director has written the story AND produced it AND directed it and everything. Again, I doubt Shekar Kapur played such a role in the making of Elizabeth.
So blaming Shekar Kapur for directing a movie where (1) (most likely) someone else's story and screenplay is used and (2) which appears - from the above whine by the Catholic Secular Forum of India - to be quite faithful to the situation in England at the time is just getting too ridiculous.
Elizabeth wasn't a great friend to the catholics, because she had learnt to be wary of them. But she was better than the anti-catholic Edward and the fanatic catholic tyrant Mary who went and hunted down the protestants in England.
And as for uniquely blaming the "Elizabeth" movie for being "anti-catholic" - what a joke. There's barely a single historical novel by an historical Englishman (Anglican) that doesn't have something to say about the Papists. Not just books either:
- BBC documentaries - like the one on Mary alleged mother of alleged jesus (some uncomfortable views about the 'holy virgin' as per christian theologians aired in there)
- historical dramas. See for instance UK's 6 hour miniseries Ivanhoe. The christians there are all catholic as it's set in the 11th century, and the really faithful/religious/practising christians among them are all (1) traitors to England; (2) torturers, madmen, anti-semitic and the witch-burning kind.
I wonder why the loser Indian christo clique of the catholic-cult variety hasn't protested to such programs? These are historically accurate when it comes to their portrayal of christoterrorism, so perhaps that's why the Indian christos have remained silent. Or perhaps Indian christos just have never read historical books or novels written in protestant parts of Europe, nor watched documentaries or programs made in such countries.
Or maybe Indian christos just like the sound of their own whining voices.
They should be forced to watch all this stuff. That will quickly cure many of them of catholicism.
Indian catholics should get themselves an education for a change and not accept the brainwashing and faux-history they learn at their religious institutions. Oh wait, forget that - they appear to be beyond hope: so many of them think Latin is a "christian" language! <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> And I remember some Indian christian mentioned here at IF advocating that Indian christians name their kids 'Martin' (or a translation thereof into an Indian language)! <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> <i>Martin</i>! Which they themselves admitted meant "gift from Mars" (=Roman God). Hysterical!
*That's* all they know. All the more reason never to study in a catholic school in India (in case the nuns hadn't already scared the bejeebus into ya).