God Loves, Man Kills...

[cmdrkoenig67]

I think I just committed heresy...

http://newsarama.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13425&p=292764#p292764

It's my opinion, but what I read of the posted synopsis, just lead me to that opinion....I have to call it like I see it. It sounds like a badly cliched story.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

You definitely can't judge it without actually reading it. A lot of the thematic stuff became cliche BECAUSE God Loves, Man Kills did it so well. It IS a little heavy-handed at times, but still one of the best X-Men stories ever told, and one that makes about 90% of the others completely redundant.

[Le Messor]

I don't love the comic. I guess I think if the message is 'be tolerant', it should be a little less intolerant itself. I'm Christian, and do not like, for some reason, being completely villified.

Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics. You could read every single panel in GLMK and not know it. It's never mentioned, not once.

So, yeah, Dana - I find it clichéd.
People keep suggesting you read it to judge for yourself; PM me and we can arrange that.

- Mik
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
~ Lord Kelvin, 1900

[Flightpath07]

"I don't love the comic. I guess I think if the message is 'be tolerant', it should be a little less intolerant itself. I'm Christian, and do not like, for some reason, being completely villified."

Thanks for that, I 100% agree.


Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics.

A) who are these people, exactly? cuz, i disagree. and, B) who is the other one supposed to be? Firebird from the WCA days? Again, if so, I say "nay".

These are the reasons that I wanna write my own superhero literature. Cuz it'll be what i like; with the morals that i wanna be portrayed, portrayed (or not, not).

[Le Messor]

Oh, and people love to cite Nightcrawler as one of two good Christian characters in comics.

A) who are these people, exactly? cuz, i disagree. and, B) who is the other one supposed to be? Firebird from the WCA days? Again, if so, I say "nay".
These are the reasons that I wanna write my own superhero literature. Cuz it'll be what i like; with the morals that i wanna be portrayed, portrayed (or not, not).

Nightcrawler's about as Christian as you can get in comics without being a villain.

A) It's come up a couple of times, when I've mentioned* that I don't like the way Christians are portrayed in comics. One of them was the editor in chief of Marvel at the time, at a convention.

B) While I have seen Firebird be the cause of a rare sensitive portrayal, the other one is Daredevil.
No, really.

I agree with the 'own literature' part (I don't limit to superhero).

*mentioned: a word that here means 'whinged'

- Le Messor
"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."

[MistressMerr]

Nightcrawler's about as Christian as you can get in comics without being a villain.

A) It's come up a couple of times, when I've mentioned* that I don't like the way Christians are portrayed in comics. One of them was the editor in chief of Marvel at the time, at a convention.

B) While I have seen Firebird be the cause of a rare sensitive portrayal, the other one is Daredevil.
No, really.

I agree with the 'own literature' part (I don't limit to superhero).

*mentioned: a word that here means 'whinged'

- Le Messor
"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."
I'd say most characters in comics are Christian, as a sort of default. It's just not constantly flaunted.

Nightcrawler's overt Catholicism is actually a more recent thing, and it bugs the heck out of me for that reason. You read things like this or his early Excalibur days, and it's like he's a complete different character from the spiritual "I'm a priest now, randomly!" guy that hung around for the last decade or so. Sometimes a decent job is made of incorporating the two and portraying the way it WAS always there, just not as overtly (the recent issue of Wolverine: Weapon X comes to mind), but usually it's just so awkward. Complaining that Nightcrawler's not Christian enough in GLMK is like complaining that Beast wasn't blue enough in X-Men #1.

Lol, Daredevil. I love the guy, but he is seriously, like, stereotypical Catholic guilt personified. XD

[Le Messor]

I shouldn't have spoken out. This sort of thing can lead to flamewars, and I do not want that on Alpha Waves.



- Mik

"Atmospheric nuclear tests do not seriously endanger either present or future generations."
~ Dr. Edward Teller, 1958

[Legerd]

I shouldn't have spoken out. This sort of thing can lead to flamewars, and I do not want that on Alpha Waves.


You shouldn't be worried about saying your piece LM, we are, for the most part, all mature enough to keep any disagreements friendly.

As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

I think most people forget that (superhero) comic books are filled with metaphors, some subtle most not. If a character or group is made to look stereotyped, it's probably because the writer is trying to fit a lot of information into a small space to get his/her point across to a vast readership, many of which won't grasp subtler undertones and will therefore miss the message.

[Le Messor]

In that case... :twisted:


As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

It's always 'just one kind'. Always.

That's why Nightcrawler not mentioning his faith in the entire issue is such an issue for me. (I believe he was established as a Christian by the time GLMK came out.) Sometime, I'd like to see an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that work for social justice, help the homeless, care about others, would never go around with "God hates fags" signs, and don't promote hate.
Or, at the very least, those of us who are strong in our convictions - believe in one God and are subservient to him, believe in morality - but don't hate or try to kill everyone who believes / acts differently. The kind I actually see, know, and interact with a lot; not the kind who are distant fringe groups.
I just don't - or at least, very very very rarely. When the only portrayals I see are negative, then saying 'we're just attacking one kind of Christianity - the evil kind' stops working.
If you have Marvel's poster-boy for 'We're tolerant. Really.' right there, and he never says so much as 'I'm Christian, and I don't think that way,' it negates the 'We're tolerant. Really.' part.

Also, I'm afraid that saying 'Christians are the default' (btw, the editor-in-chief I mentioned, who I'm beginning to think wasn't the editor-in-chief, said pretty much the same thing) is kind of like saying "nowhere in X-Men #1 did anyone say Beast isn't blue, so all those issues that portray blue people as the worst evil of the world are completely negated.

- Le Messor
"Heavy smokers. Don't throw away those filters from the end of your Cigarettes. Save them up and within a few years you'll have enough to insulate your roof."

[Flightpath07]

Have to agree with you, Mik.

Most people do not see that side of Christianity, because they choose not to - it is easier to call those you do not agee with "intolerant" than to try to have some understanding for them. And although i WILL agree that some Christians (and/or those who call themselves one, a whole 'nother topic entirely) harbour intolerance and hatred (and is there any group or sub-group of society where that is not not true?), to paint all of one grouping of society with the same brush, is very irresponsible and is, at its heart, "ironically" very intolerant of the painter.

'Kay, I'm done now. Next topic?

[MistressMerr]

Also, I'm afraid that saying 'Christians are the default' (btw, the editor-in-chief I mentioned, who I'm beginning to think wasn't the editor-in-chief, said pretty much the same thing) is kind of like saying "nowhere in X-Men #1 did anyone say Beast isn't blue, so all those issues that portray blue people as the worst evil of the world are completely negated.
I don't see how. Whenever colour casually comes up, characters don't casually mention that they're blue a large majority of the time the way they do with religion and Christianity. Sticking to the X-Men (since that's just what I know best), off the top of my head, Cyclops, Havok, Karma, Gambit, Banshee, Siryn, Dazzler are all established Christians, and that's just off the top of my head (and mostly Catholics, since that's what I am and so I guess they stick in my memory more). Comics are filled with positive Christian portrayals, it's the characters who aren't Christian who tend to be the exceptions.


As for the depiction of Christians, I think when you see ones like the purifiers and Stryker, it's an attempt to show the real life, ultra hardcore Christian groups. The kind that go around with the "God hates fags" signs promoting hate for various sections of society. I don't think any good comic writer would depict all Christians in that way.

I think most people forget that (superhero) comic books are filled with metaphors, some subtle most not. If a character or group is made to look stereotyped, it's probably because the writer is trying to fit a lot of information into a small space to get his/her point across to a vast readership, many of which won't grasp subtler undertones and will therefore miss the message.See, I agree entirely with the first half of this, but the second part doesn't sit right, mostly just because there are skeezballs like Stryker out there. The story wasn't about painting all Christians as evil, intolerant scum, just these ones, whether Nightcrawler mentions his own faith or not.

As for Kurt at the time, if his Catholicism was established (I think it was at least in passing, but don't quote me on that), it definitely wasn't played as a huge part of his character yet and wouldn't have had much meaning either way.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I can't believe this has turned into a "religious" conversation...

I am in no way saying it's all Christians who are like this...But let's face it, "Christian" churches (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Mormon, etc...) have made (and are still making) a terrible name for themselves (The Crusades, Witch Trials of Europe and the States, the "ex-gay converters", Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptists, Prop 8, etc, etc...). "Christian" churches are the cause of millions of deaths since ancient times (Crusades/Witch Trials) all the way to now (gay teens committing suicide, because they are taught to hate themselves by alleged "loving Christian" families). There is a Florida Church group right now who are planning to burn a Qur'an as a protest on 9/11...An action which may put millions of people (both soldiers and civilians) in more danger than ever...Possibly even sparking a religious World War (we don't know what will happen, but I doubt it will be good).

It may be (and may have been in the past) a minority of so-called "Christians" who are doing/saying horrible things to their fellow humans...Yet they are the ones making a bigger mark in the world with their words and actions (making all Christians appear to be villains), not the actual Christ-like Christians (who sit silently by while these others make them look bad)...And that's a shame.

Writers base these evil "Christian" characters on all of these small hate-filled groups/extremists who claim to be believers in Christ...It should be no reflection on those who are indeed, Christ-like.

Dana

[cmdrkoenig67]

It's really unfortunate that Claremont didn't use the book to show (from Kurt's perspective) that all Christians aren't hate-mongers...The story fails in that respect. If Kurt/Nightcrawler was shown to be a strong Catholic after this book, It's even more unfortunate that CC never touched on it later (explaining why Kurt stood silent during the events).

Dana

[cmdrkoenig67]

You definitely can't judge it without actually reading it. A lot of the thematic stuff became cliche BECAUSE God Loves, Man Kills did it so well. It IS a little heavy-handed at times, but still one of the best X-Men stories ever told, and one that makes about 90% of the others completely redundant.

I really don't see how five fake-out deaths in one story would qualify as doing anything well. Is the story synopsis inaccurate? Did the writer of the synopsis mislead me or did the story's events happen as he says they did? Having not read it I can't make a complete assessment, yet this synopsis paints the story as being quite bad....At the moment, it's all I have to go on.

Dana

[Flightpath07]

Writers base these evil "Christian" characters on all of these small hate-filled groups/extremists who claim to be believers in Christ...It should be no reflection on those who are indeed, Christ-like.

Agreed. 100%.


It's really unfortunate that Claremont didn't use the book to show (from Kurt's perspective) that all Christians aren't hate-mongers...The story fails in that respect.

Not having read the issue, i cannot really (fairly) comment on it. But if it only showed one side of religious bigotry, without someone of the same religion, (and a major character) showing the other side (which does actually exist - churches, and more imoprtantly the loving people who fill them, actually do a lot of good in the world) , then, yes, it sounds like it WAS an epic failure. Not only that, but I would say it borders on bigotry itself - it is causing people to possibly, through one character's actions and the omission of actions (or words, thoughts) by another character, to reach a state of judgement about Christianity as a whole. That's...irresponsible writing. And quite offensive, depending on my mood at the time.

That being said...meh, it's a comic. People will believe what they choose to believe - that is, after all, the whole basis of 'belief'; free choice of thought.

[MistressMerr]

I really don't see how five fake-out deaths in one story would qualify as doing anything well. Is the story synopsis inaccurate? Did the writer of the synopsis mislead me or did the story's events happen as he says they did? Having not read it I can't make a complete assessment, yet this synopsis paints the story as being quite bad....At the moment, it's all I have to go on.

Dana
When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

[cmdrkoenig67]

When the characters are revealed as being alive barely a few pages later, it hardly counts. The purpose was to have the other characters believe they were dead and then figure out that they weren't for plot purposes, not to trick the audience into thinking that half the main characters had just been unceremoniously killed off, no different than when the X-Men "died" in Dallas. Heck, by that logic, Byrne's Alpha Flight was full of shoddy writing between Sasquatch's fake-out death and those of Northstar/Aurora/Talisman when they went to go bring him back. It was just a story beat. You need to actually read the thing for yourself before you judge it.

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!

In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.


My only real complaints against GLMK come from the way that, like I said before, it is really heavy-handed in places, which, considering the way Claremont normally gets when dealing with matters of race or religion, is really saying something, but the strength of the story pulls it through, IMO.

MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

Hold on there!...Sasquatch didn't die a "fake-out" death....Not in the least. He did not show up hale and hearty a couple pages later. Snowbird ripped the beating heart out of his chest...He was dead, his soul was merely trapped in the realm of the Great Beasts (do I really have to explain all of this?)....Yet when Alpha retrieved it, he had no living body to return to (he was still technically dead). Shaman simply used the Box robot as a shell to contain Walter's soul. Walter was never the same character again after those events...How on Earth can it called a fake-out death?

The deaths of Northstar, Aurora and Talisman were equally not "fake-out deaths"...They too were killed, dead, murdered. Walter Langkowski used a part of his soul to resurrect them. I don't see how any of the actual Alphan deaths can be compared to a faked death, illusory death or a death that is misinterpreted, even for a couple of pages...They died (according to the synopsis, none of the X-Men actually did)!
Oh, so if the character ACTUALLY dies for just a few pages it's okay, if the character is only thought to be dead it's not? So cheap on-the-fly resurrections are okay, revealing they weren't actually killed is not? Alrighty then.


In GLMK: in both instances of their "deaths", was the reading audience aware the whole time that Storm, Cyclops and Professor X really alive?...if so, then I would agree that Claremont was only tricking their fellow X-Men into believing they were dead (in-story) and not trying to fake-out the audience. If the reader is not aware of their "deaths' being anything other than real while reading the story, then I call foul.For all of a page before the X-Men (and thus the readers) realize "Wait, this is total bull." It hardly counts as much of a fake-out.


MM, neither you nor anybody else answered my questions my post about the synopsis of GLMK. I suppose I'll have to wait and get my answers from reading the graphic novel itself.What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

[DIGGER]

What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

I have to agree. Read the actual story and come to your own conclusions, otherwise no matter what other source you are getting your info from, it is based on that persons impressions or interpretation of the story.

DIGGER

[cmdrkoenig67]

Oh, so if the character ACTUALLY dies for just a few pages it's okay, if the character is only thought to be dead it's not? So cheap on-the-fly resurrections are okay, revealing they weren't actually killed is not? Alrighty then.

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.


For all of a page before the X-Men (and thus the readers) realize "Wait, this is total bull." It hardly counts as much of a fake-out.

It's still a fake out, if the reader isn't in on the secret. It's a bit different if the reader knows a hero isn't really dead, but the characters don't. Fooling the reader for a few pages is also fine, but several times over in the same story? It comes across as repetitive, sensationalized, shoddy writing.


What questions? About whether it's accurate or not? Yes, it's a pretty accurate synopsis. But that still doesn't mean you can judge something without actually having read it to get the full picture.

Yes, because I haven't heard that enough in this thread...I did say I was going to read the story in my last post, did I not?

Dana

[DIGGER]

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.



Yes, because I haven't heard that enough in this thread...I did say I was going to read the story in my last post, did I not?

Dana

Yes you did and I think (to quote Stan The Man) 'NUFF SAID!

DIGGER

[cmdrkoenig67]

Ty.

Dana

[MistressMerr]

It depends on the way it's done...Claremont did it five times in that one book (and all of them were fake deaths, nobody really died)...It seems pretty cheap to me, IMHO. There is no need to get nasty about it.


It's still a fake out, if the reader isn't in on the secret. It's a bit different if the reader knows a hero isn't really dead, but the characters don't. Fooling the reader for a few pages is also fine, but several times over in the same story? It comes across as repetitive, sensationalized, shoddy writing.
Didn't mean to come across as nasty, just meant that your reply sounded kinda hypocritical. Also (I haven't actually read the whole synopsis up there and it's been a while since I've read the story in question), what five deaths are you referring to? The only ones I remember are the Professor, Storm, and Cyclops, and they happened all at once. These weren't a whole bunch of individual "fake-outs" happening over and over again, it was all at once, one plot point.

[Le Messor]

The only fake-out deaths I remember were really one single event, as has been mentioned. So it's not really fair to accuse GLMK of 'five fake-out deaths'; more like 'one fake-out of five deaths'.


I can't believe this has turned into a "religious" conversation...

Well, that is a major theme of the book in question. ;)


I am in no way saying it's all Christians who are like this...But let's face it, "Christian" churches (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Mormon, etc...) have made (and are still making) a terrible name for themselves

And I'm not denying those people exist. They are quite real; but they're in the minority in real life. I've never met anyone as bad as, say, Westboro... but in fiction, they are the vast majority.
In order to be fair, reporting can't just be accurate - it has to be balanced; and while this may be accurate, it is by no means balanced.


Sticking to the X-Men (since that's just what I know best), off the top of my head, Cyclops, Havok, Karma, Gambit, Banshee, Siryn, Dazzler

MM, I admire your optimism, but I can't share it.
See, I think you and I are speaking a different language here. I think I'll need to define my terms:
When I say Christian, I mean somebody with a strong faith; one that affects their everyday life. Somebody who believes in and cares and thinks about God and Jesus, who follows their teachings and have a faith that is a big part of their life.
What I do not mean is somebody who once showed up in a church. I do not mean somebody who hangs out in a social club once a week, or twice a year.
I definitely do not mean somebody whose parents showed up in church once, or even somebody whose parents were devout. I absolutely do not mean somebody who I haven't been told isn't Christian.

You listed Cyclops as a Christian character.
I have hundreds of issues of X-Men - by no means all, but a lot. I don't know how many I've read with him in them, but again, it must be in the hundreds. We're talking about somebody whose thoughts I can literally read (being that they're written in little bubbles above his head).
When you say he's Christian, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know where you get it from; I'm not saying nowhere, just that I can't remember ever seeing it - and if I came to think he was Christian, I would remember. I've spent far too much time with him and know him far too well for it to have never come up.
That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

I can't remember him ever going to church - certainly not regularly. Ever reading or referencing the Bible. Ever praying. Ever spending time, or trying to spend time, with other Christians. Ever saying 'I am Christian'. Ever seriously talking about God.

That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

What does he do?
He calls Ororo a goddess, he kills and orders people to kill, he leaves his wife and child for an old girlfriend, he has sex outside of marriage - all without the slightest thought of the theological implications. I have never seen him think 'Maybe if I call myself a Christian I shouldn't be doing these things', not even to follow up with 'but I can't help it'.
(It's the not thinking about it that's the important thing here, not the actions themselves.)

That alone is enough for me to say he isn't Christian.

And yet, you say he is. S'rously, why? I don't even know where you get it from. Were his parents or grandparents shown in a church once? (I noticed his brother was on your list). I'm curious, but I'm going to warn you - nothing will make me think Scott Summers is actually a Christian character. Any definition of 'Christian' that stretches so far as to include somebody who shows not the slightest sign of any faith in or care or thought about God is meaningless to me.

In comics, God, his word, his morality and his people are at best ignored; at worst, mocked, belittled and villified. I've read from one end of the X-Men to the next (though again, not all of it) and I've read a lot of weird stuff - but I've seen nothing to make me think Scott Summers is a follower of Christ. And yet you're using him to say 'see, Christians are represented in comics - they're in the majority'.

I cannot agree with you on that one.

- Mik
(Sorry, Dana... you can imagine this is something I feel strongly about.)

[Flightpath07]

Have to say I agree with Mik.

I suppose all I can really add to that is, to me, my understanding of being a Christian is the literal one; a follower of Christ. Not so much a follower of His teachings but literally following Him. I take some umbrage with the word "Christian" being used to describe anybody who beleives that there is a God. "Being a Christian" is all about the word "be"; it is something you are, and not just something you beleive, or say you beleive.

Sorry to hijack the topic about a comic book, but this is a subject I feel passionately about.

[cmdrkoenig67]

Didn't mean to come across as nasty, just meant that your reply sounded kinda hypocritical. Also (I haven't actually read the whole synopsis up there and it's been a while since I've read the story in question), what five deaths are you referring to? The only ones I remember are the Professor, Storm, and Cyclops, and they happened all at once. These weren't a whole bunch of individual "fake-outs" happening over and over again, it was all at once, one plot point.

I was going by the synopsis parts Chapter 1, scene 4: Where Prof X, Storm and Cyclops supposedly die from gunshots and an explosion....Then Chapter 3, scene 3: Where Prof X is forced to "kill" Storm and Cyclops (then Magneto heals them or whatever, since he discovers they aren't really dead). That's 5 "deaths".

Dana

http://www.sidekickcomicsuk.com/blogs/blog4.php/2008/09/29/x-centric-crib-sheet

[cmdrkoenig67]

Mik, FP...I understand how you both feel and there is nothing wrong with discussing it here.

I was raised in a variety of church settings, since I was very small. First taken to Congregational by my Great Grandparents at the age of 5, then later by my mother to Seventh Day Adventist church, then to a Baptist church. As an adult, I've also attended another Baptist church, a Mennonite church and shortly after, an Episcopalian church...I'm a bit of a church gypsy. I have not been to church in many years now (at least not since my early thirties).

I have my beliefs and my own relationship with God and Jesus, but there's also a disconnect I feel being not "normal". There's no getting around it, I am who and what I am and there is no way to change that.

Dana

[Le Messor]

Mik, FP...I understand how you both feel and there is nothing wrong with discussing it here.

Well, we are hijacking your thread to do it.

For the record, Nightcrawler was mentioned as Christian in Uncanny #165, cover date January 1982 (I believe that was the first mention). God Loves, Man Kills was printed in 1982. Because of the weirdness of the publishing schedule - April-December 1982 came before January-March 1982, I cannot tell if he was revealed before then or not. (I had always felt GLMK was much later, and assumed it was long-established by that time.)

Dana - nothing wrong with hopping denominations, though I know what you're referring to when you say you don't feel normal.

Reviewing the issue:
Yes, there is a scene in the beginning where the audience is led to believe three X-Men are shot (and the characters believe they died in a car accident - and I agree with the difference between the characters being led to believe in a death and the audience believing it)... and, yep - both those scenes exist. The audience is led to believe Storm and Cyke are killed at the end of chapter 3. It's still only two incidents, which may be too many.
I think the reason they don't cause that much of a problem for me is that they're really far apart, and aren't played up that much as genuine death scenes. At least, not the second so much.

Though I'll let you judge when you read it.

- Le Messor
"Help stamp out and abolish redundancy!"

[MistressMerr]

Well, we are hijacking your thread to do it.

For the record, Nightcrawler was mentioned as Christian in Uncanny #165, cover date January 1982 (I believe that was the first mention). God Loves, Man Kills was printed in 1982. Because of the weirdness of the publishing schedule - April-December 1982 came before January-March 1982, I cannot tell if he was revealed before then or not. (I had always felt GLMK was much later, and assumed it was long-established by that time.)
1982, really? Wow, you're right, it really does feel like it came out later than that. Given the nature of the Marvel Graphic Novels, I'd say at the very least the story was written long before that of Uncanny #165, but it's all so close together, I'd say it's also a moot point.

As for your definition of what constitutes a Christian character, going by that, there are very few religious characters in comics period, Christian or not. Of ones where religion was an active part of their lives in the time frame we're dealing with here, I can think of Kitty and Ororo, and that's faded for the both of them as the years have gone on, while Kurt's faith has been played up more and more. That's about it. In that case, it's hardly that there's a dearth of Christian characters in comics, it's that religion just doesn't tend to be a large part of most superheroes' lives.

[MistressMerr]

I think the reason they don't cause that much of a problem for me is that they're really far apart, and aren't played up that much as genuine death scenes. At least, not the second so much.
Yeah, I think this is the clincher for me. It's not like those comics that advertise on the cover "TONIGHT AN X-MAN DIES!!!!!" and then it turns out to be some flaky "DUN DUN DUN!!!!!......... nevermind it's all better now" deal. Even ignoring the fact that I know the characters are still around 30 years later, reading it, I never would have been like "OMG THEY KILLED THEM WHAT?"

[suzene]

As for your definition of what constitutes a Christian character, going by that, there are very few religious characters in comics period, Christian or not. Of ones where religion was an active part of their lives in the time frame we're dealing with here, I can think of Kitty and Ororo, and that's faded for the both of them as the years have gone on, while Kurt's faith has been played up more and more. That's about it. In that case, it's hardly that there's a dearth of Christian characters in comics, it's that religion just doesn't tend to be a large part of most superheroes' lives. There's Wolfsbane as well -- would she have been around at this point?

[MistressMerr]

There's Wolfsbane as well -- would she have been around at this point?
Rahne would have showed up just shortly after this story came out (I think GLMK was Graphic Novel #4 while the New Mutants one was #6), so I'd definitely lump her into the same time period, yeah!

[cmdrkoenig67]

Well, we are hijacking your thread to do it.

For the record, Nightcrawler was mentioned as Christian in Uncanny #165, cover date January 1982 (I believe that was the first mention). God Loves, Man Kills was printed in 1982. Because of the weirdness of the publishing schedule - April-December 1982 came before January-March 1982, I cannot tell if he was revealed before then or not. (I had always felt GLMK was much later, and assumed it was long-established by that time.)

Dana - nothing wrong with hopping denominations, though I know what you're referring to when you say you don't feel normal.

The "not normal" comment was more of a statement on how society views "my kind"...Not necessarily how I feel about myself. I'm as "normal" as I'll ever be....I like who I am.


Reviewing the issue:
Yes, there is a scene in the beginning where the audience is led to believe three X-Men are shot (and the characters believe they died in a car accident - and I agree with the difference between the characters being led to believe in a death and the audience believing it)... and, yep - both those scenes exist. The audience is led to believe Storm and Cyke are killed at the end of chapter 3. It's still only two incidents, which may be too many.
I think the reason they don't cause that much of a problem for me is that they're really far apart, and aren't played up that much as genuine death scenes. At least, not the second so much.

Though I'll let you judge when you read it.

- Le Messor
"Help stamp out and abolish redundancy!"

[cmdrkoenig67]

Have any of you seen this website... http://www.comicbookreligion.com/

I don't know the extent of the "proof" on some of these characters' beliefs, but it pretty much has labeled every character known. Although, it says Nazis religious beliefs are in Nazi, that's really inaccurate...Nazism is sooooo not not a religious belief and didn't the big evil H claim to be a Christian?

Dana

[suzene]

Have any of you seen this website... http://www.comicbookreligion.com/

I don't know the extent of the "proof" on some of these characters' beliefs, but it pretty much has labeled every character known. Although, it says Nazis religious beliefs are in Nazi, that's really inaccurate...Nazism is sooooo not not a religious belief and didn't the big evil H claim to be a Christian?

Dana
I'm trying to decide whether to be amused or exasperated that they feel the need to list LGBT as a religion. Their explanation of why it's been included as such is not helping. And yes, agreed that some of the "proof" there is pretty thin.

[Le Messor]

Have any of you seen this website... http://www.comicbookreligion.com/
I don't know the extent of the "proof" on some of these characters' beliefs, but it pretty much has labeled every character known. Although, it says Nazis religious beliefs are in Nazi, that's really inaccurate...Nazism is sooooo not not a religious belief and didn't the big evil H claim to be a Christian?

Everybody says he claimed to be something else; so with my lack of knowledge of history, I can't say.
I have seen Marvel use Nazism like a religion. - A Swastika turned a vampire, because of the Nazi's faith in it.

Yes, I've seen that site in the past. Like others, I do find their proof spurious.


The "not normal" comment was more of a statement on how society views "my kind"...

Yep, I knew what you meant.

- Le Messor
"Help wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply"

[Le Messor]

As for your definition of what constitutes a Christian character, going by that, there are very few religious characters in comics period, Christian or not.

'My' definition of a Christian character is one who shows traits of being Christian. What are you going by?

I would agree with your second half; but that was never my point. My point was, when Christians are represented in comics, they're almost always evil. I do not feel better about it when there's a heroic character - my example being Scott Summers - who shows not one trait of being Christian, no faith, no commitment to God, just because...
...
Y'know what? I don't know how that sentence ends. I still don't have any idea why you listed Cyclops as a Christian character.

How can he, and characters like him, balance off negative portrayals like Stryker, the Purifiers, the Church of Humanity (and their independent offshoot who tried to take over the world by making Kurt pope), or Rahne's 'father' (sticking to X-Men villains I can remember without looking).
And, when it comes to other religions - how many comics have you read where the main plot is a villain waving around a torah, wearing a yamulke (sp?) and saying 'In the name of Jaweh, Elijah, and Moses, I must to kill all mutants!'?

And that's my point - I hate Sauerkraut. That's all I'm really trying to say.

[Legerd]

MM, I admire your optimism, but I can't share it.
See, I think you and I are speaking a different language here. I think I'll need to define my terms:
When I say Christian, I mean somebody with a strong faith; one that affects their everyday life. Somebody who believes in and cares and thinks about God and Jesus, who follows their teachings and have a faith that is a big part of their life.
What I do not mean is somebody who once showed up in a church. I do not mean somebody who hangs out in a social club once a week, or twice a year.
I definitely do not mean somebody whose parents showed up in church once, or even somebody whose parents were devout. I absolutely do not mean somebody who I haven't been told isn't Christian.

Wolfsbane is a perfect example of the type of Christian you're describing. She has often spoken of her beliefs and has questioned the actions of her team in the past and had to reconcile them with her faith.
Still, even if a character is religious, a writer isn't going to have them proselytizing every time they show up. It can make for a nice subplot in the story if they have to wrestle with their convictions while being vigilantes, but will quickly bog it down if they are constantly exclaiming the glory of god. Plus, not every reader wants to hear about someone's religion. It can be a turn off to many people if they feel they are being preached at, even if that wasn't the writer's intent.



In comics, God, his word, his morality and his people are at best ignored; at worst, mocked, belittled and villified.

I have to disagree with you there. Quite often the references to god are small things, like someone saying "Please god, let them be alright" or something to that effect. It lets the reader know that character has a belief without having to show him/her in church every Sunday. Not to mention that the life of a superhero probably doesn't allow for regular church attendance. Plus, it can be tricky using religion for the heroes. If a character is shown to follow a certain religion, then readers might get upset if he/she does something that is against that religion. Or other readers might get upset if a religion they hate is being shown as "right" because the hero practices it. It's often easier to avoid getting fans upset by simply not using religion very often or at all.
As for mocking or belittling, I've never seen that done in any Marvel/DC book. Maybe in an Indie comic, but I can't see the big two doing that.
Vilified? I can see your point with Stryker and the purifiers, but again there are real world examples of that kind of "Christian". Hell, George Bush Jr. said god told him to invade Iraq. There are people who will use religion to promote their agendas, so why not use it as a plot device if you can tell a good story?

[Flightpath07]

Well, I find that website amusing. I certainly HOPE that nobody is taking ANY of that seriously. I mean, J. Jonah Jamison's religion is listed as "I hate Spiderman"...c'mon!

Again, if your faith does not drastically affect the way you think, feel, act, speak, and live your whole life, then i do not count that as faith; it is more like casual belief.

And that is where this whole topic of religious beliefs in this Thread has gone astray, for me; the whole idea of what it means to be a "Christian" is obviously seen differently by different people. If we cannot agree on what one is, how are we supposed to know who is one, lol?

All I am saying is, if we put down our definitions on paper, they would be drastically different, I am afraid.

- "Quite often the references to god are small things, like someone saying "Please god, let them be alright" or something to that effect. It lets the reader know that character has a belief without having to show him/her in church every Sunday." -

Actually, I disagree with that. Almost anybody, Atheists included, would call on God in that manner when they are worried about somebody. The same person that only says 'God' when it is followed by a curse word, will call out asking Him for help when they have nowhere else to turn - so, for me, that characterization means nothing.

[MistressMerr]

Well, I find that website amusing. I certainly HOPE that nobody is taking ANY of that seriously. I mean, J. Jonah Jamison's religion is listed as "I hate Spiderman"...c'mon!
Services are held every Wednesday.;)


I have to disagree with you there. Quite often the references to god are small things, like someone saying "Please god, let them be alright" or something to that effect. It lets the reader know that character has a belief without having to show him/her in church every Sunday. Not to mention that the life of a superhero probably doesn't allow for regular church attendance. Plus, it can be tricky using religion for the heroes. If a character is shown to follow a certain religion, then readers might get upset if he/she does something that is against that religion. Or other readers might get upset if a religion they hate is being shown as "right" because the hero practices it. It's often easier to avoid getting fans upset by simply not using religion very often or at all.
As for mocking or belittling, I've never seen that done in any Marvel/DC book. Maybe in an Indie comic, but I can't see the big two doing that.
Vilified? I can see your point with Stryker and the purifiers, but again there are real world examples of that kind of "Christian". Hell, George Bush Jr. said god told him to invade Iraq. There are people who will use religion to promote their agendas, so why not use it as a plot device if you can tell a good story?
Way to take the words right out of my mouth, I pretty much agree with all of this.


How can he, and characters like him, balance off negative portrayals like Stryker, the Purifiers, the Church of Humanity (and their independent offshoot who tried to take over the world by making Kurt pope), or Rahne's 'father' (sticking to X-Men villains I can remember without looking).
And, when it comes to other religions - how many comics have you read where the main plot is a villain waving around a torah, wearing a yamulke (sp?) and saying 'In the name of Jaweh, Elijah, and Moses, I must to kill all mutants!'?What it comes down to is that that just wouldn't resonate with anybody. In today's society, there are only really two kinds of loony tunes religious offshoots that people are familiar enough with for them to have any real significance and thus be useful in a storytelling capacity, and those are A) Christian fundamentalists like Westboro et al. and B) Muslim extremists. We see these things often enough on the news and whatever, it rings more true that these people do exist, whereas a group with some hardcore evil Jewish or Buddhist agendas just wouldn't have the same effect.

I just have a really hard time seeing Christians as some put-upon, vilified group just because this one time the villain hid his bigotry behind religion and Nightcrawler didn't say anything about it. Considering that the matter of his religion didn't even come up until Uncanny #165, and only that was because Wolverine stumbled across him praying all alone if memory serves, it obviously just wasn't something he talked about and wouldn't have fit in the story. And since I can't really think of any more major examples of Christians being the bad guys in the story, I still can't see how they cancel out the far more numerous examples of them being the good ones like Nightcrawler and Wolfsbane (and sticking with the New Mutants, Sunspot and Cannonball had pretty solid, more quiet religious beliefs, too, didn't they?).

[Le Messor]

Considering that the matter of his religion didn't even come up until Uncanny #165, and only that was because Wolverine stumbled across him praying all alone if memory serves, it obviously just wasn't something he talked about and wouldn't have fit in the story.

Your memory serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Merr; they do you credit, but they could be made to serve Marvel.


And since I can't really think of any more major examples of Christians being the bad guys in the story,

Every bad guy in that story and several others.


Wolfsbane is a perfect example of the type of Christian you're describing. She has often spoken of her beliefs and has questioned the actions of her team in the past and had to reconcile them with her faith.

She is an example, but not a perfect one; in her particular case, I've always felt her abusively Catholic upbringing kind of offsets any good her presence does.
Kurt is still a far better example.
I don't know one way or the other about Sunspot or Cannonball.


Still, even if a character is religious, a writer isn't going to have them proselytizing every time they show up. It can make for a nice subplot in the story... I have to disagree with you there. Quite often the references to god are small things, like someone saying "Please god, let them be alright" or something to that effect. It lets the reader know that character has a belief without having to show him/her in church every Sunday.

Actually, that'd probably be pretty boring. I'm not asking for characters to be all 'in yo' face!' Christian all the time. I'm saying that the ones who believe in One God, the ones who talk about Jesus, the ones who follow Christian morality - are almost always shown as villains. I'm not asking to show heroes in church, or show them reading the Bible - but I do want to have some evidence that they actually do it, and take it seriously, and aren't evil because of it.

Also, twist ending! I agree with Flightpath that that kind of prayer means absolutely nothing to their general life.


Plus, not every reader wants to hear about someone's religion. It can be a turn off to many people if they feel they are being preached at, even if that wasn't the writer's intent.
... If a character is shown to follow a certain religion, then readers might get upset if he/she does something that is against that religion. Or other readers might get upset if a religion they hate is being shown as "right" because the hero practices it. It's often easier to avoid getting fans upset by simply not using religion very often or at all.

That kind of cowardice would be easier to take if they had the same problem with showing Christians as villains a lot. Not just directly, but 'symbolically'; does anyone out there think that the Skrull Invasion with its constant 'He loves you' was not a thinly-'veiled' attack on Christian faith?

All this in a country where nearly half the population claims to be "Christian Church Adherents":
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/religion.html

And try to remember that I'm not asking for a bunch of prosteletysing Christian characters in stories about going to church and praying and reading the Bible all the time. What I'm asking for is a real balance against the evil Christians I see so often. While I have never seen somebody who believes as I do represented in a comic, I could take that a lot better if the people who come closest weren't always evil.
I'm 'represented' by a bunch of people with vague 'I believe in some kind of god-like idea' 'faith', but no Christian conviction or commitment, and ravening, cruel, rabies victims spouting Bible verses.

Though, for me, Nightcrawler is very helpful in this regard. While he doesn't represent me well, he's the closest to representing me I've got.


As for mocking or belittling, I've never seen that done in any Marvel/DC book. Maybe in an Indie comic, but I can't see the big two doing that.

It happens. It would be a lot more helpful if I could figure out a specific example to point to, but I can't right now, sorry.
What I'm talking about is the way Christians are often shown as ineffectual; our beliefs are never shown as true in comics - though contradictory ones are; we are often shown as insane or deluded (one of the few positive Christian characters in X-Men couldn't tell the difference between Brood infection and the gift of healing) or think every villain is a demon, even the robotic or alien ones (listen to the musical version of War of the Worlds, but that's a non-comics example); etc...
All this against a backdrop of Marvel and DC having no problem showing multiple gods - but never mine (just a vague 'presence') - and setting up demons as heroes.

Try this example: when was the last time you saw a character say 'no, I won't have sex with you; I'm waiting until marriage'? Out of my thousands of comics, I can think of one issue where that happened, and the character in question (Marvel Boy / Justice) seemed to dump that idea later on. That doesn't exactly show me that they're supportive of my beliefs.


Vilified? I can see your point with Stryker and the purifiers, but again there are real world examples of that kind of "Christian". Hell, George Bush Jr. said god told him to invade Iraq. There are people who will use religion to promote their agendas, so why not use it as a plot device if you can tell a good story?

I'm not asking them to avoid that; I'm asking them to balance it. Take the X-Files - for every evil Christian, there's a good one, so I've always felt it's the most balanced show I've seen in these ways.

Try to keep that in mind - all I'm asking for here is balance.

- Mik
"Hell is truth seen too late."
~ John Locke

[MistressMerr]

Try this example: when was the last time you saw a character say 'no, I won't have sex with you; I'm waiting until marriage'? Out of my thousands of comics, I can think of one issue where that happened, and the character in question (Marvel Boy / Justice) seemed to dump that idea later on. That doesn't exactly show me that they're supportive of my beliefs.
I've never heard a person say that in real life. It's just not that common a stance these days, and while it would be interesting to see a character with those values, it's not an inaccurate representation that it doesn't generally come up.


I'm not asking them to avoid that; I'm asking them to balance it. Take the X-Files - for every evil Christian, there's a good one, so I've always felt it's the most balanced show I've seen in these ways.

Try to keep that in mind - all I'm asking for here is balance.
This is the thing, I really can't think of that many evil Christians beyond Stryker and his goons, or Rahne's dad being an abusive jerk (certainly not a trait unique among superhero origins). I'm really not seeing this supposed imbalance of horrible Christian archetypes that you are.

[suzene]

This is the thing, I really can't think of that many evil Christians beyond Stryker and his goons, or Rahne's dad being an abusive jerk (certainly not a trait unique among superhero origins). I'm really not seeing this supposed imbalance of horrible Christian archetypes that you are.

Chuck Austen. Church of Humanity. Exploding communion wafers. (http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/01/uncanny-x-men-423-part-1-of-2.html)

It's OK. I tend to forget that storyline too, purely out of self-defense.

Even so, I do feel there is some quieter counterbalance, not just in major characters like Nightcrawler and Wolfsbane, but in small acts of comfort by the priests that Kurt's confided in over the years, in the Guthries, who are God-fearing salt-of-the-earth types who refuse to give in to bigotry and hysteria, etc.

I know everyone approaches this topic from a different set of life experiences, but from my own, that rings fairly true -- the extremists of any group are the loudmouths, the ones who get airtime on the local news. The ones who fear power slipping out of their hands are the people you hear about performing and supporting actions that defy any definition of human decency. Hope is found in individuals who reject such thinking and rise above it, but those tend to be the guys who don't make for decent ratings. And when you're looking at a group like the X-Men, whose major shtick is that they're an oppressed minority, it does make thematic sense that The Church is going to crop up as a villain on occasion.

[Legerd]

Here's a nice blog (http://www.emporiausa.net/Cafe%20Christian%20Fiction.html) on the issue of Christianity (or the lack thereof) in mainstream comics.

[Flightpath07]

does anyone out there think that the Skrull Invasion with its constant 'He love you' was not a thinly-'veiled' attack on Christian faith?

I must admit I found that phrase to be 'uncomfortable'. And I think you have nailed it on the head; in many ways, it does come across as an attack on Christianity, God, and Jesus.

[Flightpath07]

when you're looking at a group like the X-Men, whose major shtick is that they're an oppressed minority

I would partially disagree with this. The major shtick of the X-Men, and all mutants, is that they are mutants, mankind's next evolution, and that they are "products of evolution". As such, in many ways, everything about them stands opposed to the church, the Bible, and Christian beliefs.

[Flightpath07]

Here's a nice blog on the issue of Christianity (or the lack thereof) in mainstream comics.

I like that! Thanx!

[Le Messor]

Suzene - that post you linked to is actually everything I know about those issues. So I don't have to drive it from my head. :)

Legerd - good blog post, thanks.

Everyone - I posted before that I didn't want to start this conversation for fear of flame wars.
I still feel we're nowhere near one. At least, I feel like everyone on the other side from me has been polite and respectful. You judge for yourselves how I've been behaving.

Anyway, I'm quitting while we're ahead; as soon as this is posted, I'll unsubsribe from this thread.

Thank you for your thoughts.

- Mik
"Her artistic sense was exquisitely refined, like someone who can tell butter from I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter."
~ Barbara Collier, Garrett Park

[cmdrkoenig67]

BTW: Rahne/Wolfsbane is Presbyterian...Not Catholic.

Dana

[Legerd]

I must admit I found that phrase to be 'uncomfortable'. And I think you have nailed it on the head; in many ways, it does come across as an attack on Christianity, God, and Jesus.

I took it as more of a reference to cults like the Moonies who use love as a way to maintain control over their "congregation". The repetitiveness of "He loves you," reminded me of the brainwashing cults use to take control of the initiates.

[DelBubs]

I've been away for while so have joined this late. God Loves, Man Kills is probably one of my favourite X-Men stories of all time. Claremont captures every thing that the X-Men where about at that time. Quetioning what they were all about and what they actually they where trying to protect. Given the dross we get served up nowadays, this is way beyond cliched and will probably only seem cliched to those who always look for the bad without seeing the good.

Just an opinion