A striking and gruesome image of the crucified Jesus, taken from the upcoming Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, decorates this week’s cover of Newsweek, and the headline reads, “Who Really Killed Jesus?” Newsweek asks a tantalizing question but, unfortunately, it does not ask the most appropriate question.  

Mel Gibson’s film has gained a disproportionate amount of publicity prior to its opening on February 25 — Ash Wednesday — and there are plenty of reasons for its notoriety: the film has no subtitles, and the dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic; the Anti-Defamation League has opposed the release of the film on the basis that it would spark a rise in anti-Semitism; Gibson, an ardent and extremely conservative Roman Catholic, has pumped $25 million of his own funds into the film. To further fan the flames of speculation and criticism, Gibson’s father is a Holocaust denier.

The Newsweek article appropriately considers The Passion of the Christ to be a deeply troubling movie. But in its sexy headline, the magazine inappropriately encourages readers to ask the wrong question. The audience should not be goaded into amateur speculation on who and what forces were ultimately responsible for Jesus’ death. If the audience desires a serious answer to that historical question, they should consult reputable sources in recent scholarship.

And here is another problematic aspect of the film — despite the presence of English subtitles accompanying the film, which is entirely in Latin and Aramaic, viewers are likely to be swayed by the shocking images of the crucified and tormented Christ. Ghastly images of Christ will naturally evoke a deeply emotional reaction from the audience, particularly if that audience is Christian. It will be preaching to the converted par excellence.    

Although Gibson, who co-wrote the script and directed and produced the film, is an ardent Roman Catholic, he is no scholar. This film must be seen as a meditative, devotional or artistic film, but it must not be understood as a depiction of historical fact.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Bush has recently and rightly been recognized as an international bully, and continuing in that vein, the Bush administration is hoping to convince European nations of its plan for the future of the Middle East. In the words of the BBC, the Bush administration plans to “promote democracy across the Middle East,” and hopes that Europe will support this plan.

What is most troubling about the likely Bush plan for democratizing the Middle East is that it would be modeled on the 1975 Helsinki Accords. While the Bush administration seems ready to happily bulldoze its way even further into the Middle East, the complex web of international and regional politics cannot adhere to a one-size-fits-all model. The Helsinki Accords were used in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It should be common sense that if the Bush administration wants to propose a map for the political future of the Islamic Middle East, it should accommodate the cultural and religious nuances of the region. Bush is no doubt frightened that, through his war, he inadvertently paved the way for a new and more Islamically oriented government to take over the reigns. If Iraq is primed for a more religiously oriented form of government, that is not something Bush can or should ignore.    

Bush made few friends with his almost unilateral plunge into Iraq, and he has made even fewer friends in light of the recent comments made by David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector, that the White House was wrong and that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Whether, in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, Bush was ignorant, lying or a spectacularly awful combination of both, he has found himself forced to fiercely defend his actions in Iraq. Convincing Europe to follow his lead again will be a very tough job indeed.  

Mimi Hanaoka

What does the evangelical community in America do when faced with the upcoming release of The Passion of the Christ, a controversial film that critics have denounced as rife with potential for inciting a wave of anti-Semitism? Take full advantage of the opportunity.  

The Passion of the Christ deals with the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life and focuses largely on the crucifixion.

The Anti-Defamation League has opposed the release of the film on the basis that it would spark a rise in anti-Semitism. Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated this summer that the members of his organization “are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.”  

Taking advantage of the upcoming release of the film on Ash Wednesday, February 25, some churches have collected money to give cinema-goers tickets to the film.    

Pastor Cory Engel, of Harvest Springs Community Church in Great Falls, Mass., explained his opportunistic program by stating: “Here’s a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible.”  

Gibson, who co-wrote the script, produced and directed the film, contributed a hefty sum — something to the tune of $25 million — out of his own pocket to finance the project.

Gibson, a Roman Catholic, did not shell out nearly as much as the $90 million that John Travolta poured into Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, a film about the Scientology story of a vile race of aliens that attempts to enslave the human race, but Gibson’s motivation for creating the film was similarly spiritual.  

While Gibson’s family upbringing does not necessarily have any bearing on his interpretation of the Bible, his father is a Holocaust denier.

An honest and earnest desire by Christians to convert the unsaved is certainly part of the Christian teaching to spread the good word of Christ; that this film should be the vehicle for proselytization is, however, deeply troubling.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Now that a comedy about Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels has been aired on prime-time German television, perhaps there is no subject that is truly taboo. It seems, however, that humanizing Hitler and exhibiting his art was going one step too far.

Bizarrely citing an overwhelming amount of public interest as the reason for scrapping the planned display, Toshiba Entertainment has cancelled its plans to exhibit a painting by Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s painting of a Viennese church was intended to be part of a package to promote the film, Max, which depicts the young Hitler as a struggling artist and explores his relationship with Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer. Some criticisms of the film are that it humanizes Hitler and trivializes the Holocaust.

While it would be unproductive to avoid serious and critical examination of a topic simply on the basis that it may be taboo, no serious artistic endeavor can justify trivializing the Holocaust.

In a staggeringly inarticulate defense of the film, director Menno Meyjes stated: “Hitler made a choice to become a monster because he found life very difficult — well, we all find life difficult, especially if you are an artist or aspire to anything.”

A defense of the artistic merits of the controversial film might be enlightening; submitting that Hitler’s difficult experiences make his genocide comprehensible is horrendous.  

Mimi Hanaoka

With the legal and philosophical justification that the Muslim headscarves have a distinctly political dimension, France will very likely enact a ban on wearing religious symbols in state schools. The ban, slated to become law next week, would apply to headscarves, crosses, turbans, skull caps and possibly beards. The bill proposes: “In schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden.”

In a highly diplomatic move, and unwilling to step on French toes, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of the al-Azhar mosque in Egypt and one of the most important religious authorities in Sunni Islam, has upheld the French ban.

If this law is passed, it will do far more damage than stamp out religious pluralism and stifle religious freedom. Students will become separated along religious lines, especially if they or their parents believe that their only option is to attend a separate Muslim school, such as the institution that was recently founded in Lille. France will not be united under the banner of secularism; it will become polarized along religious lines. Islam is now the second largest religion in France, and this ban will be rightly interpreted as a thinly veiled attack on the country’s growing Muslim population. Fueled by righteous anger and driven into separate schools, a population is being created in France that is susceptible to being swayed by a radical interpretation of Islam.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Angering some and appalling others, Briton Karl Beattie has recently claimed that he is a samurai, despite the fact that the samurai class was officially abolished in 1868.

In recent months, a number of popular films, such as Lost in Translation, The Last Samurai, and Kill Bill have been released, and it is unclear whether jettisoning Japan into the popular consciousness has sparked claims such as Beattie’s. Perhaps Beattie’s absurd claim that he was granted the obsolete title by the Japanese Emperor — the Office of the Imperial Household told The Japan Times that it has done no such thing — is merely emblematic of a strangely and culturally inappropriate misplaced tendency of self-aggrandizement.

Mr. Beattie gushingly asserts that “Being a samurai is the ultimate honor.”

Challenging and expanding notions of national and cultural identity is certainly a productive thing to do. But what this sword-wielding Briton is suggesting is both anachronistic and troubling. This self-styled samurai is harkening back to a pre-modern feudal system in a highly militarized Japan. While it is doubtful that Mr. Beattie will have any significant impact, cultural or otherwise, it is problematic that he is, in effect, fetishizing a historical and cultural phenomenon.

When he is not busy occupying himself with the samurai way of life, Mr. Beattie runs a British production company. One of the company’s hit shows, Most Haunted, features Mr. Beattie’s wife, Yvette, tracking down ghosts and attempting to prove paranormal phenomena.  

Mimi Hanaoka

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, were a devastating tragedy, and the tangled web of security measures that were subsequently implemented have created their share of havoc, heartbreak and frustration. The case of Sonam, a thirty-year old Buddhist nun, was recently documented in The Washington Post.

Seeking asylum from religious persecution, Sonam fled China and entered the United States in August after her friends and family were subjected to torture for their adherence to Buddhist beliefs. Sonam entered the United States and was promptly incarcerated in Virginia. In November, Sonam was granted asylum by a federal immigration judge. The Department of Homeland Security immediately announced that it was appealing the case; instead of tasting religious and political freedom, Sonam shuffled back to her cell, shackled, where she awaits her next court date. While no date has yet been set, it is unlikely that she will be ushered into court again before the fall.

Tibetan Buddhists have been subject to religious persecution for more than half a century. In 1950, the forces of newly communist China invaded and occupied the Tibetan territories, and since the 1959 National Uprising, the Dalai Lama has been living in exile in India. In recent years, the plight of the Tibetan people has received increasing attention from the American public.

Clearly, there have been some gaping holes in the immigration process, as evidenced by recent reports suggesting that among the 9/11 hijackers were individuals who should have been denied entry or the right to remain in the United States. However, this process of denying parole to immigrants such as Sonam results in indefinite periods of incarceration. Coupled with the staggering amount of bureaucratic inefficiency, asylum seekers are forced into a miserable Bardo where they are neither here nor there. Sonam does not know when or if she will be freed.

Although she is unable to speak to anyone in prison — since Sonam does not speak English —, she maintains: ”This prison has become my monastery.“

Mimi Hanaoka

Cultural practices and social mores often color — or depending on your perspective, intrude upon — religious practice, leaving some Buddhist nuns in Sri Lanka in a bind.

One such nun, Bhikuni Kusuma, has taken on the title of “Bhikuni,” which is the appellation accorded to an ordained Buddhist nun. While Buddhist nuns abound in the world, the controversy in Sri Lanka is that the dominant form of Buddhist thought in the country is Theravada Buddhism. These nuns were ordained in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism. The two schools diverge on matters of both belief and practice, and the fact that the nuns have been ordained in the Mahayana tradition has resulted in friction and outright criticism.

The nuns find themselves in a catch-22: To be ordained as a nun in the Theravada tradition, a woman must be ordained by ten senior nuns. However, there are currently no nuns in the Theravada tradition.

Personal piety is clearly not the central issue in this controversy. It seems doubtful that the approximately 400 ordained nuns in Sri Lanka could pose a threat to the established clerical hierarchy, yet the moneyed religious establishment is wary of conferring legitimacy to a movement that has any potential of destabilizing its monopoly on religious authority. Unlike the Catholic tradition, Buddhism has no living individual, like the Pope, who wields ultimate religious authority. Given the inherent fragmentation of authority and the diversity of schools and modes of thought within the Buddhist tradition, to deny these women the right to ordination is to stunt the growth of a dynamic religious movement.    

Mimi Hanaoka

During the past few days, the newswires have been busily documenting the sordid business of modern day slavery. The BBC today carries the story of Mende Nazer, a young Sudanese woman who was adbucted by slave raiders at the age of twelve and spent eight years as a slave before she escaped. Nazer was eventually given by her mistress to her mistress’s sister who lived in London. The rationale for the human gift, as the wife of a slave trader explained to Nazer’s mistress, was that “‘it’s easy for us to get you another abda [slave]…whereas I understand it’s impossible for people to find one in London.’” Nazer escaped while she was held captive in London and has recently published her book, Slave.

On a related subject, an aritcle in The New York Times documents the barbaric and lucractive U.S. sex slave industry. Sex slave are distinct from prostitutes: They are unwillingly forced into prostitution, receive no financial renumeration for their services, and are held captive by their traffickers or owners. The numbers are staggering. Kevin Bales, of Free the Slaves, America’s largest anti-slavery organization, estimates that the number of sex slaves in America amounts to 30,000 to 50,000 slaves.

The United States only recently enacted legislation that speaks to the crime of trafficking in humans.  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 enables the United States to impose economic sanctions on nations that the it believes are not making sufficient efforts to stem the human trafficking within their borders. The Protect Act, established in 2003, criminalizes travel abroad or into the United States for the purposes of sex tourism that involves children.

That commerce in sex slavery and human bondage exists is shameful but perhaps not entirely shocking. What is without a doubt shameful is that it is only in the past few years that America has enacted legislation to criminalize it.

Mimi Hanaoka

Breaking with the tradition of political quietism, thousands gathered in Tokyo today to protest the dispatch of troops to Iraq. While the estimated number of 6,000 protesters pales in comparison to the droves that flooded the streets of New York City during the anti-war rally last February, it is a noticeable presence in an otherwise politically apathetic city.

Even as Colin Powell admits some doubt about the possibility that Iraq was hoarding weapons of mass destruction, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are entering the political quagmire of Iraq and stationing ground troops in the region. The legality of this dispatch of troops to Iraq is questionable. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibits the dispatch of troops to a combat zone, and many argue that Iraq remains a combat zone even though the war is technically over. Noboru Minowa, a former Posts and Telecommunications Minister, is planning to file a lawsuit against the dispatch of troops on the basis that it violates the Constitution.

The chatter about Iraq on the news stations has grown increasingly sober and frequent in recent months as the nation prepares to become militarily involved with the American-led occupation in Iraq. As Prime Minister Koizumi drags an unwilling Japan into Iraq, the voice of popular dissent and public outrage is growing steadily louder. While we can only hope that at some point the voice will actually be heard, it is heartening to know that it is at least being articulated.

Mimi Hanaoka

In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush delighted his conservative base by reaffirming his stance that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, thereby undermining the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

Bush’s remark can be seen as a response to the decision handed down by the Massachusetts supreme court ruled in late 2003 that ruled that gay marriages are not unconstitutional. While Bush has not yet enacted a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages on a national scale — thereby overruling the Massachusetts court’s decision —, he did make clear that he is emphatically against gay marriages. Bush declared last night that If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.”

Bush’s stance against gay marriages should be seen in the context of his support for “healthy marriages,” a cause for which he has earmarked $1.5 billion to be spent on training and counseling for lower-class heterosexual couples.  

While American news agencies such as CNN covered the story in relatively bland tones, across the Atlantic the BBC used particularly stringent language to describe Bush’s stance. The BBC stated: “To those fighting for the rights of homosexuals, the president’s election-year remarks formed part of an aggressively homophobic agenda which seeks to push US gays and lesbians to the fringes of society.”

While gay marriages have received the legal blessing of the state of Massachusetts, the gay community was certainly handed a pointed snub, if not an outright defeat, in last night’s address.

Mimi Hanaoka