Roland Emmerich has finally met his match. The man who’s made a living 
simulating mass destruction in films like Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Day After Tomorrow, has found something that cannot be destroyed. Or let me rephrase that — something he’s afraid to destroy.
Emmerich’s new film 2012 looks like the mother of all apocalypse movies. However, Yahoo Movie Talk reports:
For “2012,” Emmerich set his sites on destroying the some biggest landmarks around the world, from Rome to Rio. But there’s one place that Emmerich wanted to demolish but didn’t: the Kaaba, the cube-shaped structure located in the center of Mecca. It’s the focus of prayers and the site of the Hajj, the biggest, most important pilgrimage in Islam.
“Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit,” the filmmaker told scifiwire.com. “But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, ‘I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.’ And he was right.”
Emmerich went on: “We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.” (emphasis mine)
For years, Christians have watched their most sacred symbols and figures cursed, ridiculed, vandalized, and (literally) pissed on. So Mecca gets destroyed — cinematically speaking — by an Israeli missile strike, stampeding swine, an army of raging Amazon women, or a suicide bomb blast gone awry. Big deal! Christianity’s been getting dissed for decades (or at least until Jon Stewart and Kathy Griffin discovered microphones).
I’m not sure what’s worse, Hollywood bigshots kowtowing to Muslims (see: Roland Emmerich), or blatant attempts by politicians and media elites to downplay the threats of global jihad. Tired of seeing the Cross submerged in urine and Madonna crucified? Maybe we Christians should take a hint from the Islamists. Forget a boycott. Fatwa anyone?
Of course I am saddened by the disgusting treatment of Christian symbols. However I am thankful that the Christian faith is one of civility, peace, humility, and guided by reason instead of emotion. Unfortunately these noble Jesus-like qualities aren't always practiced by Christians or so-called Christians. Just look at the death and destruction in many places around the world. That is why I have learned that instead of looking at other faiths and criticizing them for their uncivilized beliefs, maybe we should take a hard look at ourselves, and try to be more like Jesus, pray for those of other faiths who do not have TRUTH. It doesn't do much good to stir up hatred or anger. It will always be returned to us in kind someday. I don't think that any movie producer would be willing to blow up the Vatican in a movie, or he would have to bear the consequences. Perhaps most Catholics wouldn't try to kill him, but growing up in the US and Western Europe simply isn't the same as growing up in the Middle East. Not only is the religion different, so is the culture. And I hate to ask this cliched question but I am serious: What would Jesus do about the Muslims? I seriously doubt that He would do what we Christ followers are doing.
Suzan,
You are right. He'd whip us for being too soft and accomodating.
As His followers, we must discern the difference between those times when we wish to spare the Amalekites out of false mercy, greed and disobedience, and those times when we wish to execute a counterfeit of God's wrath.
There is a Muslim concept for infidel directors who fear a fatwa more than they love their artistic vision: dhimmi.
I'd buy your argument if the director had said he didn't want to destroy the Kaaba out of respect for religious inclinations – but he didn't. He destroys Brazil's Jesus icon, no problem, because his artistic bravery is a sham. He is, at heart, dhimmi. And Jesus has as little tolerance for dhimmitude as he does false piety.
Those weren't licorice whips He was flailing in the temple.
Yep, the director is clueless, I agree. Christ followers shouldn't be.
I am a believer, and I don't think that Christians are too soft and accommodating regarding Muslims. I think that they soft and accommodating regarding their own sin, and soft and accommodating of their government, which is mostly corrupt. Christians have become filled with fear and hate of Muslims, stirred up by the "Conservative" mainstream media-whom they worship more than they do Jesus. I do not believe that war and violence is the answer, and if American Christians had to actually spend time in the Middle East and see with their own eyes what is happening there, they'd have to be honest with themselves and direct their righteous anger elsewhere.
I completely disagree – war and violence is clearly an answer, from a biblical perspective, at least. I'm not sure how one can possibly appreciate the safety Christ affords through his blood without also harboring a fairly deep appreciation of the violence, both just and unjust, tied up in that.
We are talking about a non-Christian director who is fearful of a fatwa. Honest Christians will express their art without fear of a fatwa.
I honestly doubt the director of 2012 was inspired by "conservative" mainstream media when he censored himself. He was thinking of Salman Rushdie, and the literal price on his head. He was thinking of Theo Van Gogh. He was thinking of all the 21st century artists, authors and filmmakers who have been crushed beneath the heel of extremism.
This has nothing to do with Christians, but with innocent people afraid to express themselves artistically because of Islamic terror.
If our biggest problem in the world was the (admittedly clueless and false) media, what a happy day that would be.
The church CAN be too soft on Islam, but not necessarily. There is a real danger in letting an ideology — one which dictate EVERY aspect of the believer's life — have its way within your own culture (look at Islam's history…however bad you think Christianity is/was, Islam is much much worse). We have to erect barriers at some point.
I think that you misunderstood me, as I didn't say that the director of 2012 was inspired by conservative media or otherwise, I was simply speaking in general terms about the Christian community.
I still stand by my statement that Jesus would not condone much of the war and violence that is being waged today. There are much bigger issues at work. One must always ask, "Who benefits" Who benefits from war? It certainly isn't the average Muslim or Christian who is just trying to live their life in peace. Of course there are fanatics in every movement, religion, government etc, it is a given.
We are to love our enemies and pray for them. That's what Jesus said.
I trust you all intuit my sarcasm here. I'm no more condoning a "christian fatwa" than I am condoning nuking Mecca. Nevertheless, my anger toward radical Islam and the American media's complicity in downplaying its threat to Western civilization is genuine.
Suzan, you asked "What would Jesus do about the Muslims?" Probably what He did with others trapped in false religion: tell them the truth. It's one thing for Christians to spend time "criticizing" other religions. It's quite another for them to "speak the truth in love." Pointing out how some Muslims consistently incite (and condone) violence may seem critical. It could, however, be simply telling the truth. The media is far too quick to indict Christianity for (allegedly) inciting the murder of abortionists. But why are they so hesitant to ask the same question of radical Muslims?
Suzan, I do not believe all wars are evil. Yes, Jesus said to "turn the other cheek" and that those who lived by the sword would "die by the sword." However, He could make those statement because His kin had fought a good share of wars to prevent their extinction. Had Jesus' ancestors, like King David, refused to fight, the Messiah and his lineage would be defunct. That's the problem with pure pacifism — it's inaction guarantees its own extinction.
Therefore, living by the sword must be quite different than using it when needed.
Condoning and allowing are two different things. The only peace in this world comes from and is provided by the Prince of Peace and His peace is between and God and man through Him. There will be wars and rumors of wars on this earth–some good as for the freedom of peoples and fought with weapons or voting, some fought for and by tryranny and its leaders.
The makers of 2012 demonstrate the typical hypocrisy waged by libs in Hollywood and most of the current media.
If Muslims are supposedly so deadly….then wouldn't they put a "fatwa" on his head for talking about destroying mecca so much and for claiming that they would kill him? This is a total contradiction.
And it's also bogus on its face: Roland Emmerich is saying he can see into parallel universes where he WOULD have had a "fatwa" on him. Say, if he can see into parallel universes, then how come he couldn't see that 'Godzilla' would be a bomb? (Well, a bomb that made a profit, but a bomb still!)
Saying that he knows what would happen is a good way of (a) making himself look like a victim when he's not, (b) making Muslims look like savages when they've done nothing, and (c) ingratiating himself with phony Christians. Of course Christians don't give a darn when movies show priests being killed ('War of the Worlds') or churches destroyed (help me out here, eh?) and so therefore, in lieu of growing a pair and standing up for their own faith, they decide to demonize Muslims.
(I "would have" been attacked by Muslims if I hadn't written this post!)
Only pathetic modern Americans need to feel empowered by claiming to all be able to see into parallel universes. What totally slanderous, anti-Arab idiocy.