Constantine's Sword (2007) User Reviews

Mr Haggard, leave that Wall alone!

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 9 September 2008]

This was an excellent documentary by a former Catholic Priest into the actions of his Church, the evangelical movement, and politicians over the years to discriminate and kill in the name of Jesus.

It starts with an overview of the indoctrination of Air Force cadets at the military academy and the resulting bigotry and discrimination against Jews and those who will not accept the views of Ted haggard (the preacher who was caught in a sex scandal) and other Christo-fascists. The film ends with another visit and the attempts of the Academy to cover up what is going on and dismiss the report on the takeover by the evangelicals.

James Carroll spends the time in-between visiting Germany and Italy and other places he had seen in his youth as a military dependent. he reminisced on holy sites and relics. he gave a good history of the Catholic Church and it';s relationship with the Nazis and how they contributed to the persecution and death of the Jews.

Those wanting to see how Jews were persecuted and how our political leaders are infusing religion into politics would be well served by this film.

A personal exploration and an institutional indictment

[Chris Knipp · 8/10 · 16 July 2008]

The protagonist of this convoluted and intellectually stimulating documentary is John Carroll, once a Catholic priest, now a successful writer and the father of two grown children. The film dramatizes Carroll's best-selling 770-page 2001 book of the same name exploring reasons why he left the priesthood. Chief among these is the Church's historical role in the persecution of the Jews. According to Carroll, the New Testament falsifies what is known of history in depicting Jews as Christ-killers, and the Church's culpability all grows from there. Moreover Constantine, the Roman emperor who converted to Christianity, transformed the cross into a sword and Christianity got blood on its hands in the Crusades and the Inquisition; but it got a lot worse when Hitler came along and the Vatican stood by and watched. As the Kirkus review put it, the book 'Constantine's Sword' is essentially the "first 2,000 years of Catholic-Jewish relations retold as a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end—at Auschwitz." Perhaps Carroll's most eye-opening point is to remind us that the Nazis were Christians.

To appreciate the film, you have to flow along with Carroll's personal journey and also humor director Jacoby's sometimes tired methodology. Scene after scene is a trite setup where Carroll poses some question, goes somewhere, and gets canned answers from some local expert. It's a device that's been used thousands and thousands of times. Luckily the material is controversial enough to keep things lively anyway.

Carroll's father went from a Chicago slaughterhouse to became so successful as an FBI agent that he was promoted to Edgar Hoover's inner circle and became an Air Force general involved in high-level intelligence planning. Hence John once considered attending the Air Force Academy. So he tells us as he drives there--then dives into descriptions of how Mel Gibson's arguably anti-Semitic 'Passion of the Christ' movie was so heavily promoted at the Academy through evangelicals, cadets felt obligated to attend--and how Jewish cadet Casey Weinstein met with constant anti-Semitism, and how his father Mikey, also an Academy graduate, felt compelled to sue the Air Force for discrimination. Delving into the shocking penetration of evangelical proselytizing at the Academy, Carroll interviews the square-jawed rictus-smiling Colorado evangelical mega-church leader Ted Haggard, evidently a key figure in these machinations.

It's hard to recount in a few paragraphs how it all fits together; maybe it doesn't. No; it does. But many--particularly orthodox Catholics--would hotly dispute the accuracy of some parts. For them, the fabric comes undone.

Anyway, Carroll traces the history of the Emperor Constantine (voiced here by actor Liev Schreiber) as a seminal moment, when the state and Christianity were interwoven, when the Pope became a secular as well as religious leader. The cross became the main symbol of Christianity, with its bloody associations and its sword-like shape and anti-Semitic overtones (if you see the Crucifixion as the fault of the Jews), and the Crusaders went out and massacred Jews in a string of communities in the East.

Another story Carroll tells is that of St. Edith Stein (voiced by Natasha Richardson), a 20th-century Jewish convert to Catholicism who begged for protection from the Nazis in a letter to Cardinal Pacelli, but got no answer and died in the camps. Pacelli became Pope Pius XII, who was called "Hitler's Pope" or "Hitler's Cardinal" for his early friendliness to the Nazis and failure to speak out against the Holocaust. This is part of Carroll's personal story because St. Edith lived in Germany and Carroll's family also lived there while his father was chief of staff of the United States Air Forces in Europe. There were nine children in the family, by the way, which impressed the Pope when the family had an audience. Carroll's time in Germany alerted him not only to St. Edith Stein but to the holy relic of The Robe kept at the Cathedral of Trier, said to have been worn by Jesus at the time of the Crucifixion, which Carroll declares a total fiction. Did he think it authentic when he first saw it in his youth? How much did he really believe, and how much does he just choose to bring up now to strengthen his main indictment? That's not so clear. But What a tangled web we weave (to coin a phrase) when first we practice to believe.

The subject of the papacy leads Carroll to Rome and its ghetto--for which the Vatican was directly responsible, and whose history he presents along with some interesting personal interviews with members of old Roman Jewish families.

Carroll's own fraught time as a Catholic priest was from 1969 to 1974; the (disapproving) Kirkus review asserts that he "remains an angry 1960s-era Catholic." He was galvanized politically by the anti-war movement and stood in protests with Father Daniel Berrigan. His father, on the other hand, ever more deeply involved in the military establishment, headed the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Vietnam era, which led to conflicts.

Follow-ups at the film's conclusion include the information about Mikey Weinstein's death threats since he brought suit against the Air Force; complicity of high officials in the US military in religious proselytizing; the resignation of Ted Haggard from his mega-church under a cloud of scandal for drug abuse and a three-year affair with a male prostitute; and information about how the present Pope Benedict XVI has waffled on the issue of Jewish guilt in the scapegoating of the Jews issue.

Carroll ends with a speech about how the world of religion is a "lake of gasoline." If you pitch one match in it, it can fire up. In this context it seems a pity Carroll spends so much time about his personal concern with the troubled relations between Judaism and Christianity, when it is the old conflict with Islam that looms largest nowadays. This limitation is due to the fact that Jacoby and Carroll, even though they did some updating, are basically working with a pre-9/11 source.

Uneven

[sergepesic · 6/10 · 2 September 2013]

Tragic marriage of religion and nationalism has born malevolence all over this shaky planet. This, not completely successful documentary, tries to grapple with the Catholic church and it's shameful history of anti-Semitism. In the same time it brushes upon a stunning situation in Air force academy in Colorado, where evangelical zealots pressure cadets to convert to their inane version of Christianity. The trouble with this movie is that while this fresh and interesting development gets about 12 minutes of movie time, the tired and often heard and repeated story about anti-Semitism in the church takes all of the rest. Why putting these two topics together without giving them equal time? It was especially amazing seeing the demented smile on the face of a joke of a preacher, Ted Haggard,notorious crystal-meth popping, male prostitute loving, face of a mind boggling evangelical movement.

A documentary of a past that must not be prologue

[alrodbel · 10/10 · 25 June 2007]

Constantine's Sword refers to the Christian Cross, the vision of which caused Constantine the Great, to cry out the timeless words " In Hoc Signo Vinces" (in this sign, you will conquer.) transforming a symbol of love and peace into an icon of war. James Carroll, an ex Catholic priest, looked at this side of his religion in his acclaimed book of the same title published in 2001. Having read the 750 pages covering the two millenniums of Christianity, fascinated by the writers ability to weave facts into a tale as absorbing as the best work of fiction, I was intrigued to see whether he could condense such a rich tapestry of history into the time limits of a commercial documentary.

He couldn't; but the film that was made captures the essential message of the book,while adding a new more important role of social commentary on the America that only came into existence after the book was published. With the multi-front assault on the very concept of a "Wall of Separation between Church and State," lead by right wing evangelicals, this film immediately jumps to the forefront of the intellectual resistance to this transformation of America.

Constantine's Sword has two distinct threads. The first is the history of Christianity as a force of oppressive xenophobia, culminating with the abetting of the worst crime of our time, the holocaust. The other thread is in the present, focusing on the resistance of a single family, that of Mikey Weinstein, who challenges the evangelical dominance of a single institution, the U.S. Air Force Academy. Left on the editing floor, dictated by the time constraints of the medium, was adequate connecting tissue between the two. The real story of the aggressive evangelizing of the Air Force cadets is that of the future, with footage not accessible; a future that this film is attempting to prevent.

Compared to centuries of atrocities by Christians against Jews, vividly shown in the film by descendants of some who suffered, the stress of the young Weinstein men at the academy is trivial. What is not trivial, is the change in tone within the current administration that encourages such actions, leaving the unasked question: if this is happening now, what will the future bring. With this film, James Carroll has continued his career of self sacrifice that began by going against his beloved father, a three star Air Force general, in opposing the war in Viet Nam, a breach that was never healed. I can only imagine how it pained him to see vital elements of his book excluded from the film in order to give it visual impact.

They chose a prominent evangelical minister to present the argument for the legitimacy of aggressive evangelizing at the academy, who did so, with charismatic forcefulness. This provided the only moment of ironic laughter from the audience, as the minister was Ted Haggard, who later was publicly disgraced by exposure of his personal sexual hypocrisy. In the 21st century, America's political direction will be shaped at least as much by market share, by exposure to competing messages, as by the intrinsic merit of underlying ideas. The laughter at Haggard's words just may distract from the the profound message of the connection between past and future that Carroll is making. But then again, this segment may bring more people to see a film that otherwise would be too heavy for a night out at the movies.

In a world of sound bite politics, this film is a serious study of a religious revival that is transforming our country, and as a global power, affecting the world. I give it my most enthusiastic recommendation with a single condition- that anyone who is moved by this film, as you will be, also go out and buy the book-- and take the time to savor every word.

Dan Brown meets Michael Moore

[pgoggins · 7/10 · 3 December 2008]

On the heels of The DaVinci Code, interest among Catholics and conspiracy buffs alike has focused on Constantine, and the cruel bargain he struck in order to maintain power, while making Christianity the state religion of Rome.

This bargain has not been scrutinized closely enough and, to his discredit, Carroll did not explore this topic closely enough in the screenplay of this film.

We understand the central premise, but the tie between the Air Force Academy and the Holy Roman Empire was not made clear enough. Perhaps that is because there isn't a strong case to be made for that proposition.

We also understand that the Religious Right and their sponsors in the Republican Party would make their brand of Christianity the state religion in the U.S., but the reality is that the First Amendment is alive and doing quite well. Yes, it is under siege, but setting up straw men like Rev. Haggard actually cuts against Mr. Carrol's point.

A more interesting comparison would have been between Constantine and the current President Bush, both of whom have struck Faustian deals. For this film to really shine, it should have made the threat from the religious right come to life.

I loved this documentary

[natalierosen · 10/10 · 2 July 2008]

I loved this documentary. I think, though, this film is playing to the choir and should be seen by those who really need to see it. May I suggest offering it for sale at the Air Force Academy and anywhere where fundamentalist religiosity in its extreme has us by our throats influencing Washington policy. It is an existential threat to our existence as a free republic and certainly a threat to our founders determination to keep religion and state forever separate. The cross in the form of a sword as James Carroll has said, has meant death to millions and continues to morph itself into different forms which still mean murder. I love ALL of James Carroll's work. He speaks for us. Run do not walk to see this film.

Is Carroll the Only Decent Christian?

[samibitoon · 15 January 2011]

"I also lost a bit of respect for Mr. Carroll due to the way that he portrays the persecution of Jews as a phenomenon entirely unique to Christianity. As if religious minorities aren't oppressed all over the world."

But only Christian Europe built gas chambers for the declared purpose of eliminating an entire people.

Carroll is the only Christian I have read with the decency to admit and express remorse for his faith's 1,700 years of brutal, bloody persecution of the Jews.

Let's hope his book, and possibly his film, spur more Christians to the same remorse.

Ambitious! could be more anthropological instead of taking sides

[earthinspace-1 · 6/10 · 4 June 2013]

It wasn't the message of Jesus which moved masses of humans to fighting. It was the natural history of humans. Each camp has its own view, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist or other religions. It would be hard to weave this all into a story that's easy to follow, but without being complete (in a summary form) and balanced, we have the appearance of taking sides. Should Christians drop their guard if Muslims do not? Should injustice-- such as anti-Semitism-- be the grounds for bias in the _other direction? Should liberals be mad when a conservative preacher finds his gay side after all? Modern thinkers could be tolerant and understanding of a human being's journey to self-awareness.

The film is probably trying to make the world better and tackle some of the most difficult issues -- human violence and hypocrisy. But once that's resolved, humans are still leaving a huge & increasing ecological footprint on the biosphere. Violence against non-humans is a major problem too! With religion, historical rigor and intelligence, this film's aspirations are higher than other films. So, the design of those higher realms should still be rigorous, to sustain the weight of reason and knowledge.

And so, I'd like the filmmakers to see their calling as being.... to persuade _all sides that what's good in their theology should not impel us to mass destruction. Without the inclusive listing of atrocities by both sides ... indirectly... any story encourages the regimented opponents of Christianity... to attack. Or, if one thinks the balance is really tipped against Christians, one needs to make a full case of that in a chapter with citations for alert scholars.

Some reviewers have already revealed sides of this vast topic area which the author and filmmaker could use, next time they explain things. We're all descendants of epic struggles for dominance. It's a good topic and in this film, it is told with blunt intelligence. It's a very difficult film to make and very high-minded of them to try. This film's bravery, research and sentiment for good.... earn six stars from me... for a movie that I'm not yet satisfied with. This film was rather quiet on the universal question-- that of whether our nature gives rise to religion or whether religious ideas deserve separate consideration.

Intelligent, riveting and expertly presented.

[darren-178 · 10/10 · 28 June 2007]

Seldom does one find themselves mesmerized by the sheer intelligence of a documentary, but in Constantines Sword the film makers articulate exploration of the all encompassing question of religion and it's place in the world is breathtaking. The film exposes, quietly and without manipulation, an underlying and unhealthy historical familiarity between the modern evangelical Christian movement and previous fervent Christian crusaders. Their anti-Semitic nature perfectly presented.

The film expertly navigates its way through complex historical and philosophical religious concepts, made easy through the very personal story of James Carrol. Part narrator part subject Carrol's view of the world is one we wish all men could share.

Pitch perfect, expertly edited, researched and directed Constantines Sword is a truly remarkable documentary, one that could only be born of such conservative times.

Revealing historical review of "Christian Soldier" mythology

[tetractys · 7/10 · 8 August 2010]

Constantine's Sword is well worth a look. Couple it with "Doubt" and you have a "troubled Catholicism" double header.

Constantine's Sword was written by Jim Carroll, an award-winning author whose father was a high-ranking Air Force officer, founder of the U.S. Office of Strategic Intelligence (OSI)and first leader of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Heady credentials, those, and a heavy legacy for son Jim, who became a priest, having been raised in a house with two angels -- Catholicism and the Air Force.

But neither was to be his own legacy. Instead, he would become known as a rebel in the Berrigan tradition. An image of the brothers graces one of the still montages dedicated to the watershed Vietnam years that served up young Jim's first divorce from his family heritage when he took the occasion of his father's visit to his church to deliver a sermon against the war.

Later, Carroll heard about a Jewish student's struggles with evangelicals at the Air Force Academy using ham-handed tactics to attempt spiritual imperialism, supported, astonishingly, by the general staff. Given his connections, Carroll investigated and found at the base an anti-Semitism that sent him on a journey for the origin of European hatred that took him all the way to Constantine, 4th-century Roman emperor who altered Christianity permanently by changing its symbols from the lamb and dove, representations of the prince of peace meant to calm mankind's violent proclivities, to the cross and sword, violent images of death and torture meant to do the opposite. Constantine's motivation is revealed in sordid personal peccadilloes that needed religious distraction.

The then-Reverend Ted Haggard turns out to be the prime mover of the Air Force Academy's focus on evangelical Christianity, needing sanctimonious distractions of his own after being fired by his church for involvement with a gay hooker and methamphetamines.

Carroll traces militarization of the Christianity from the time of the ruler who killed his own son and united the cross and the sword, through the Crusades to the 1930s, when Hitler's Cardinal becomes Pope Pius. He documents mythology surrounding the "Christian Soldier" and touches on eschatology driving the "left behind" craze that motivates so many modern-day evangelicals. He travels to the mountain Crusader castles along the Rhine and by examining primary source documents shows them to be anti-Semitic strongholds where Jewish pogroms occurred as well.

Carroll ends with the giant cross outside Auschwitz -- visible to anyone touring the grounds -- and in the context of this historical journey, leaves us with what could be the movie's most haunting image.

Skip the Film - Read the book!

[sborges · 5/10 · 3 January 2009]

Went to see this film with great expectations - Carroll's massive book with the same title is fascinating to say the least - a brilliant writer with exceptional knowledge of his topic. But the film is a far cry from the book; actually, I found the documentary quite tepid, adding little to facts, otherwise, very well known. The antisemite aspects in Christianity are highly complex issues, treated, for some unknown reason, in a simplistic manner in the film (which, again, is not the case of the book, a grand incursion into the subject). Anyone with even a slight interest in history will find the film lame and a bit boring. He attempts to touch on various points and, in my opinion at least, loses himself by aiming at various targets at once.

In regard to the rise of the Fundamentalist Christian Right, which is progressively taking over America and its Government, I would suggest another documentary, the excellent "Camp Jesus" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/), which is way better than "Constantine's Sword" at getting the message across - in Carroll's case, stick with book and skip the film, which doesn't do justice to Carroll's genius.

Making ploughshares

[Buddy-51 · 8/10 · 11 January 2012]

The documentary "Constantine's Sword," directed by Oren Jacoby, grapples with the age-old question of why, throughout the course of human history, so much bloodshed and violence have been committed in the name of God.

In this case, the person making the inquiry is James Carroll, a former priest turned author who wrote the book on which the film is based. Raised a devout Roman Catholic, Carroll came to question aspects of his religion during the height of the anti-war movement of the 1960s – a movement which the Church officially condemned – and when he began to research the role the Church itself had played in fostering and implementing anti-Semitic violence in the almost two thousand years of its existence (he doesn't go much into the Catholic-on-Protestant/Protestant-on-Catholic violence occurring at the same time). He cites the conversion of Constantine as the moment when Christianity turned into a violent religion and notes how the portrayal of the Jews as "Christ-killers" set in motion centuries of Church-sanctioned and Church-fueled anti-Semitism. He points to the crusades of the early 1000s, the widespread persecution and extermination of Jews during the Middle Ages, and even the far more recent cozy relationship between the Vatican and the fascist dictators of the 1930s and '40s – and the Church's lack of effort in halting the Holocaust - as evidence of his thesis.

Interestingly, Carroll focuses almost exclusively on acts of violence perpetrated by Christians on Jews and Muslims and ignores acts of violence perpetrated by those groups against others (i.e., the Hebrew genocide of the Canaanites found in the Book of Joshua, modern-day Islamic jihadist attacks on Israel and the West). Perhaps, due to his papist background, Carroll simply feels more personal responsibility for Catholic-approved atrocities and doesn't feel comfortable examining the other side of the religious-violence coin. However, even if that is indeed the case, it still results in a strangely unbalanced look at the subject. Then again, since when is it the job of every documentary to cover every single aspect of the subject it's documenting? Plus, he does make the case that, until Christianity owns up to its violent history, conflicts with other religions will only intensify in the years to come.

Currently, one place in which Carroll sees religion and military power coming together is in the United States Air Force, where officers and cadets – including Jews, Muslims and nonbelievers - are being coerced into becoming Evangelical Christians. He travels to the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs to document that situation. Carroll feels that a military defined by this kind of sectarian religious zeal will only further convince the other side that we are indeed engaged in some kind of modern-day holy war with Islam, a Twenty-first Century crusade. At great personal risk to themselves, a group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Air Force for the right not to be proselytized to – an act for which they've received condemnation from the powers-that-be and even death threats. This, in many ways, is the most disturbing and eye-opening section of the movie - not least of all because an obviously pre-scandal Ted Haggard gets quite a bit of air-time commenting on the subject, since it was he who filed a counter-lawsuit on the part of evangelicals to be allowed to continue preaching the evangelical gospel to a captive audience of military personnel.

Carroll ends his film with the four sobering words, "No war is holy" - and with a title card revealing Haggard's eventual fall from grace for consorting with a male prostitute and snorting crack. I guess sometimes the good guys do win after all.

(another) ignorant pastor comes to his senses and tells his personal story

[jdirt2019 · 7/10 · 15 January 2012]

as has been said above, Constantine's Sword could be grouped as just another former preacher lashing out at Christianity for what he has discovered to be a web of lies (YOU HEAR THAT YOU GOD DAMN IGNORANT FUNDAMENTALISTS? Christianity IS A WEB OF LIES AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT AND YOU KNOW IT TOO!), but i think this film would be best understood in the context of the many films/stories/testimonials/etc telling a similar story of a formerly devout follower who was so convinced of their belief(s) in a religion but has "seen the light" and are coming out against their former way of thinking. my favorite response from fundamentalists, an example of which i'm sure will make it into this comment section, is to say that the person who has come out was never properly enlightened in the first place, but that argument fails on it's face because it assumes a priori that a religious belief is factually true and whenever someone comes out, the religious follower will just restate their beliefs amended around the facts presented.

thats a long way of saying i don't think Constantine's Sword ever attempts or was intended to provide a complete destruction of religious beliefs, but is just another example of a person once fooled by religion being enlightened and feeling compelled to share their story. again and again and again and again people are coming to their senses and films like this are just another example of what we need to be the new enlightenment unless we want to continue to allow ignorant ideologies and ignorant hate speech to lead us into war after war (i especially enjoyed the maybe five minute focus alloted to our dear leader leading the post 9/11 war on terror).

whether or not you are an ignorant fundamentalist, or just a "regular" fundamentalist (we're all laughing at you!), watch this film. open your eyes. think about the future. please help steer the future away from religion.

we are all developing the future, don't let your contribution be one of ignorance.

Colorado Springs is not Berlin 1936.

[durandal040 · 4/10 · 17 December 2009]

This film is a spurious attempt to draw a straight line between the Catholic church's historical oppression of Jews and the growing number of conservative Christians at the Air Force Academy. It is heavy on ancient history and personal anecdotes, but light on any actual facts or theories that might connect the two.

I also lost a bit of respect for Mr. Carroll due to the way that he portrays the persecution of Jews as a phenomenon entirely unique to Christianity. As if religious minorities aren't oppressed all over the world. Ask a Muslim in India, a Buddhist in Afghanistan, or a Christian in Israel: persecution is a fact of life for religious minorities, regardless of what you believe or where you live.

Carroll's journeys in Europe--meant to showcase both his childhood memories and the historical suffering of the Jews--are touching. But he presents irrelevant point after irrelevant point in his quest to provoke the audience into thinking that Colorado Springs today is like Berlin in 1936. He also conveniently ignores the fact that following several reviews, the right people at the Academy were fired, and better disciplined officers were promoted in their place. But I guess that wouldn't fit in with his parting shots at conservative Christians and the government.

about the rise in religiosity

[argyle-wolfknapp · 10/10 · 4 November 2010]

James Carroll has exposed some critical gaps in the history of anti- Semiticism in the Roman Catholic church. Frankly, in light of this history, the Holocaust was merely another flare-up in a long, long story. He shows how the New Testament has been obfuscated - first by Constantine and later on by those who claim to teach it - starting with crediting the Jews with the crucifixion of Christ, rather than the Romans who actually *did* it (the Romans wouldn't have delegated executions). Given the myth of the British-Hebrew tribe/migration rising right along with this, the growth of anti-Semitic behavior (particularly at the Air Force Academy) is hardly a surprise.

The fact that the now-discredited Rev. Haggard was deeply involved with preaching an anti-Jewish credo to the cadets at the Academy (and the greater Colorado Springs area, to be fair) only lends credibility to Carroll's charge.

The film should be required viewing for anyone trying to make sense out of the current anti-Jewish position of both the evangelical Christian movement and Islam, and especially for anyone in or considering entering a seminary.

Provocative and Enlightening!

[shaunschon · 9/10 · 18 March 2010]

Constantine's Sword may seem weak and unprovocative, when compared to some other documentaries along the same lines, but that's what makes it so powerful. It's just as provocative and hard hitting as any of the others, if not more, but it is a lot more subtle. At first viewing, and while you're watching it you may find yourself wondering why the narrator doesn't launch in on the attack, but by the end of the movie, or rather after, you're done, you'll realize how damning it is in it's simple revelations. And that's it's strength - simple facts and revelations, not allegations or ridicule. It's the kind of documentary that anyone can sit through, but not one that can be forgotten or dismissed very easily. Sure, Catholics may be skilled at dismissing and ignoring unpleasant issues that concern them, but those with a conscience will not be able to ignore the guilt of association that these facts cast on them.

A film that tries to be a antidote to "Passion"

[JoeB131 · 9/10 · 15 May 2011]

I get the feeling that James Carroll, the former priest who narrates this interesting film, was part of the far left "Liberation Theology" movement of the Catholic Church that took hold in the 1970's until John Paul II put the Kaybosh on it.

He attempts to reconcile the underlying anti-semitism in Christianity with a modern, sensible position that it's wrong.

Very noble, but it has a problem.

If you are a Christian, you think Jesus was the Messiah. If you are a Jew, you don't believe he was. those are two completely irreconcilable positions. ( I personally do not have a dog or a God in that fight.) Carroll points out that at one point, the numbers of Jews and Christians were equal, but today there are 2 billion Christians and only 15 million Jews.

Oh, and Reverand Haggard. Why does every "expose" of Evagelicalism need to shoehorn Haggard in there? Oh, because he was caught with a male prostitute and a pile of meth, that's why. No one heard of this fool before that.

good information, unfortunate presentation/packaging IMO in the form of...

[marymorrissey · 4/10 · 5 December 2008]

the guy who is in front of the camera way to much and the endless cuts to the same damn pic of his father... and the boundless wonder with which he bores, er I mean regales interview subjects with epiphanies related to his past (each of which after the first is a repetition for the unlucky audience: he wanted to be in the air force, he wanted to be and became a priest, cause his family was all about - excuse my while I yawn audibly - holy rolling in search of relics and in fact this is the very street my mother used to go holy card huntin isn't this fascinating?!?!? OY!) is a real drag! This material might have been presented far more economically and with time to go into much more if it hadn't been a star vehicle for some pedantic old preacherman... honestly you can see the eyes of the people he's talking to as they commence to glaze over as he "relates" the subject to himself so he can, you know, relate... what a crashing snoozer this film turned out to be. . . ! how much better if it'd been presented by, oh, I don't know, maybe the Princess Gloria von Turn und Taxis, she's fascinating compared to him, and that's not saying a whole heck of a lot! and what about the fact that Ratzinger now has authorized the sale of Creed fragrances in the Vatican Gift Shoppe? ! !? Of course the man is a denier and and apologist and scented tracks might have borne mute but eau so fragrant witness!

A must see documentary!

[Freethinker_Atheist · 10/10 · 4 March 2015]

I was raised Evangelical and knew nothing about the things showed in this film, which is more concerned with the Catholic Church. I came to know the dark side of Protestantism (not part of this movie, unfortunately) only after I stopped going to the church, discovering by myself all the evil things done by Luther (a Jew and women hater), Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli and others, about whom Protestants think they are heroes and will go to Heaven. It must be like this in every religion, that their followers know nothing about their dirty past, as long as they are part of them.

Since the essence of almost every religion is to claim to be the true one, today I'm convinced violence is an indivisible part of most religions. If my religion is the true one, then all others are false, and if they are false, they are wrong, and what is wrong should not exist. It's that simple, sadly.

Since this movie is mainly about violence against Jews, to be fair open your Bible and read. How was Israel founded? Also on extreme violence. God commanded the Israelites to invade other people's land and massacre them, including the children. Throughout the Bible you read that God commanded people who worshiped other gods to be exterminated (see Baal, for example). In Deuteronomy 13:6-10 God commands the Israelites to kill even their own relatives, if they turn to other gods.

Religions are destroying this world. Thousands of years and the problem of fanaticism persists. It's no surprise. Because of the exclusivist nature of religions, fanaticism will never cease. Millions of Evangelicals believe there will be a World War III, because it's a precondition for the second coming of Jesus. And they are willing to help make this day come sooner.

It would have enriched the film if James Carroll had mentioned the fact that there is no historical evidence that Jesus even existed. That would have made the hatred Christians have for Jews look even more absurd, since Christians hate Jews for killing someone who may have never lived. I'm sure Carroll knows that, but he simply ignores it, in order not to lose his faith completely.

Read the book "Wasting Time on God", by Paulo Bitencourt.

Mr. Carroll's Confusion

[samkan · 3/10 · 8 December 2008]

What this documentary is really about is Mr. Carroll's inability to reconcile his religious upbringing and his relationship with his father. JC uses a hodge podge assortment of undergraduate level diatribes against established religion to fight the dinner-table arguments he is still having with his late dad.

The thinness that JC's personnel demons are disguised is so apparent that half-way through the film, after yet another reference to and photograph of JC's father you want to yell "Get over it!. There really is no relationship between the Air Force Academy's infiltration by evangelicals and our country's napalm bombing of Vietnam almost 40 years ago. Rather, JC simply must find a way to display his present anger along side his youthful rage. That Catholicism is guilty of countless atrocities is old news but must be redredged since JC has managed to secure some mundane interviews concerning tired topics. That the Holocaust will have to be exploited is a given : The question is not if the Auschwitz gates will appear but when.

JC considers himself nothing if not provocative. Without question this rebel nature first became apparent when squaring off against old Joe. Playing the angry young man continued to pay off by making JC a celebrity priest and, when the calling proved too confining, now pays the bills and provides trips to Colorado Springs, Italy, etc. JC has the skills of an ordinary journalist and its interesting to learn of many things in this movie. But taken as a whole, this film is just a resume that son uses against father to fight the proverbial Oedipal battle.

A personal statement about a lot of ideas

[myschrec · 8/10 · 14 August 2009]

Carroll's exceptional book - Constantine's Sword - is a comprehensive exploration of the relationship of Christianity and Judaism. However, because this relationship extends over 2000 years, no single book or single volume could adequately cover the details of this history. So one should not expect this excellent documentary to even come close to the detail and depth needed by the subject matter. On the other hand, this documentary succeeds in at least introducing people to this bloody and embarrassing history of intolerance and hatred. As noted in one of the DVD "extra scenes," a majority of college students incorrectly stated that Jesus was a "Christian," when he actually was a Jew. Similarly, it should come as no surprise that most people have little or no knowledge about Christian persecutions of the Jews before and during the Crusades, through the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions, as well the "blood libels" raised from 1144 to before World War I. A film like this one is needed to challenge ignorant and disingenuous expressions like Mel Gibson's inflammatory "Passion of the Christ" and the Pope's recent assertion that the Nazi Holocaust was the result of "neo-paganism" that took root in Germany.

Carroll's personal anguish in this film, I believe, mirrors the conflict that every viewer should feel in intellectually considering the myths of one's religious beliefs. For example, in one of the DVD "extra scenes," a Jewish activist commiserates with Carroll about his concern that his religion often holds itself up as being holy, perfect, and infallible. How unrealistic. I thoroughly appreciated hearing about Carroll's internal struggles with his faith and his religion - as well as his conflict with his father. Lofty philosophical and religious ideas do not exist in a vacuum. A religion is not just principles of faith. It is also the people who express that faith, whether Haggart, Constantine or the Pope, and the actions they take or fail to take.

Carroll's focus on attempts by evangelicals to proselytize at the Air Force Academy, and to use Academy cadets to proselytize non-Christians is, in my opinion, a perfect example of one of the core issues raised in his book: A religion that can sometimes be a force for good, kindness and compassion can also be a force for intolerance, hatred, and holy war. Also, another core issue is that some "true believers" -- e.g., those who proselytize their faith to convert non-believers -- are blind to the harm that they cause, are ignorant of the myths they assume are true, and some are -- e.g., in Haggart's case -- just plain hypocrites. And I find this to be true of the intolerant fundamentalists in my religion - Judaism - from my own personal experience. Carroll's film might focus on Constantine, the Air Force evangelicals, and Catholicism, but it raises universal issues of myth-making, ignorance, intolerance and xenophobia applicable to other faiths and other circumstances.

I do not fault this film in any way. It is an excellent introduction to all the issues. It is intended to make some people uncomfortable and to encourage many people to study the issues in greater depth.

For those who want to read more about the Air Force Academy and the evangelicals, I recommend the article "Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military" by Jeff Sharlet in the May 2009 Harper's Magazine.

Those who want to read more about antisemitism, the myth of Jewish "deicide" (i.e., killing Jesus), the Crusades, the Inquisition, the blood libels, and other examples of Christian acts against Jews, there are many volumes in your library or available by inter-library loan. Unfortunately, these books don't get checked out much, which seems to support another point raised by this film: some people prefer to believe the myths and remain ignorant of the facts.

Why using Wagner in a documentary on anti-semitism?

[sbohm101 · 4 August 2008]

I noted that in the documentary (when the subject of 'Hitler's pope' is discussed, Wagners music is used in the score (I believe it's the opening of the 'Tannhauser' opera).

I may miss the point, but Wagner is considered an outspoken anti-semitist in his time (late 1800's) and Hitler saw him as an inspirational figure. Feelings against Wagner's music by Jews is sometimes so strong that they leave or choose not to attend weddings which play the famous 'Wedding Bridal', also from Wagner...

Given that background, it is remarkable to use music from this composer for a documentary on this topic! Did it slip by or is there a deeper meaning?

Edit: I sent a question regards the above to the producing company and got the response that they intentionally used Wagner's work at this very specific point in the documentary.