|
"The Nightmare" is a church sponsored horror house. While hanging out with some christens I heard tell of its wonders. This horror house is based on the top five killers of teenagers. But this is not advertised. The fact that the organization is religious is also not made known. Participants are led through a series on high-intensity horror shows. Narrated by a mysterious voice (could it be... Satan?) scenes of drunk driving, drug use, Gangs, Suicide, and um... Cult indoctrination (I'm not sure this is a top 5 killer, but certainly it is offensive to Christians). Then they get a tour through Hell, see Jesus flogged, and put up on a cross. All of this is done with state of the art movie effects: explosions, lots of fake blood, trained rats, smelly vomit-type stuff (lots of gross smells you can't get at the local theater -- well at least not intentionally), and cool lighting tricks. At the end, church members are waiting to hand out literature or talk or whatever. I am assured that participants are not required to stay for a lecture. And that some thousand or so people have "come to god" as a result of this bit of showmanship. |
|
So is it blatant manipulation? Well duh. But is that an unpardonable crime? I'd like to believe that people would make decisions based on rational arguments, but I don't think this is gonna happen anytime soon. Besides I like confrontational movies. Movies that tame down violent acts only serve to show violence as cool. When the good guy shoots the bad guy and he merely falls dead, then what's so bad about shooting bad guys? But in "Blood Simple" or "Reservoir Dogs" or even "Saving Private Ryan" the violence is brought home to the viewer in a way that is inescapable (at least to current sensibilities). And yes there is gore for gore's sake, but I've always been in favor of making horrible acts look horrible -- a scene which shows Jews herded into a room and then cuts to smoke stacks doesn't capture the "you are there feeling" of panicy people shoving each other around. There's a scene from "Schindler's List" that comes to mind. The absolute horror of knowing your going to die while being shoved around by other people who are going to die with you. The claustrophobia and fear seem more real and terrible than a more sensible death-by-implication shot. |
|
But I can't help thinking of the knuckle-head that passed around pictures of aborted babies during a speech in high-school. It seemed argument by intimidation, scare-tactics disguised as intellectual discourse. |
|
So it seems that I have to accept one if I want the other. I can't say that gore is OK for my cause and not another. I guess I depend on people to get past the initial reaction. That when they calm down, they'll have to think through the issue. That, in the best of situations, shocking film or events causes a re-thinking that either re-affirms one's prior beliefs or causes change. There's a responsibility that comes with shocking. Any work that aims to shock owes it to its viewers/readers/listeners to have some sort of rational reflection. |
|
Which is maybe what bugs me about "the Nightmare," that it seems like the rational argument is missing. Because, well... It is religion, after all. And religion, when you get down to it, just isn't very rational. It bothers me when I see people turn their minds off when evaluating an argument. Claims of god's work aren't tested with the same rigor they would test other theories of the universe. I see it a large blind spot. A sort of willful ignoring of evidence (or lack there of). |
|
But. And here's the big catch: That's my viewpoint. I like rational thought and feel that shock is justified when it is backed up or supported by rationality. And 50-100 years ago, when the idea of a completely logical universe seemed viable, I might have argued that my viewpoint was the only defensible one. But Quantum theory and Post-modernism have poked quite a few holes in Rationality. So science is now filled mostly with pragmatists. People who are commitment to what works -even if it may sometimes seem counter-intuitive (at least this is true in physics). |
|
And there are some people whom religion works. And that's fine with me. They can go there own path and I'll go mine. I am not so egocentric to believe that my path is the one true way -- and I hope they aren't either. |
|
But hasn't my admission that Rationality has self-contradictions built in opened the door for non-rational thought in government? If the rational world of science and statistics is no longer a pillar of unchallenged truth, then isn't OK to seek alternate means of certainty? Why statistics to poll the public? Why not astrology? Why not prayer in schools, or religious instruction? But whose religion? Should majority rule -- would we be comfortable with Christian schools? But which Christianity? People seem to think that they all say basically say the same thing, but I disagree. The tone and nature of the various churches do not converge to a point, they diverge wildly. Its only because we haven't been subjected to another religion that we seem to think it would be OK to have Christian ideals taught in school. I don't think there's any such thing as Christian ideals -- not that all would agree to. Sure you could boil them all down to a list of moral generalities that wouldn't offend anyone, but then isn't that just basic morality -- which we already try to pursue. I don't think people who want religion in government have really thought it through. I can almost guaranty you that it won't be your religion calling the shots. And even if it is, do really support everything your church supports? |
|
The neat thing about the sciences is that they basically get along. Physicists may gripe about Biologists and Biologists about Physicists and everybody about social scientists, but we basically respect each other and differ to them in their area of expertise.
And so here is the great question of the post-modern world: So, we've shown that rationality has holes in its foundations and that even math itself has irrationalities hiding in it, but what do we do about it? Abandon the (somewhat) rational for the spiritual? Do we really want to go back to Religious states? State sanctioned Holy wars. Science taught along side somebody else's religion. |
|
I'm biased. I really think this forced separation has been healthy for the two. Religion was always better at personal redemption and morality on a small scale than it has been with large scale governmental action. And science is good at finding answers, and while it can inspire some people, Atheist states seem just as oppressive as single-religion states. No one should be forced to live in a purely rational world just as no one should be forced into an spiritual life. |
|
Maybe the message is that no thing is so true that it isn't a little bit untrue. No religion completely abandons the rational, just as no science is without its irrationalities. |
|
And we may just have to live with that, Jik |