Religulous (Larry Charles, 2008)

[warren oates]

Right, but you still haven't explained what's particularly shocking about the devout behaving devoutly in this specific context. Are HuffPo commenting Christians somehow especially more likely (or did you suppose less?) to privilege fictions that jibe with their beliefs over facts? Why wouldn't that be the case in most comments sections on most fairly mainstream portals on the Internet? Also, the story itself isn't particularly "nice" or empowering for a mainstream Christian audience. It's nothing like the self-congratulating complacency propaganda espoused by, say, for example, advocates of the prosperity gospel. Insofar as this urban legend reminds mainstream churchgoers of the radical roots of Christ's teachings -- whether they insist on taking it literally or not -- it's far less pernicious than many official and unofficial doctrines of churches far and wide.

[domino harvey]

Are you trying to pick a fight or something?

[warren oates]

Absolutely not. And I'm sorry if it came off that way.

I'm just honestly curious about what you see as the story in this story. Snopes debunks religious glurge for years. HuffPo features this single debunking. Internet comments sections on sites like that one, when issues of religion or politics are involved, generally devolve pretty quickly into shouting matches between the most partisan voices. So, like I said above, I'm just not clear on what's so uniquely surprising or troubling here. We live in a country where more than 20% of the population believes the End TImes are nigh. Wanting to believe a made-up priest did something that other real priests sort of did, albeit less dramatically, if it actually gives people a reason to be kinder to random homeless guys, doesn't seem all that awful to me.

[Luke M]

I wish they'd make a sequel.