Do I advocate censorship? When that censorship is in the form of a violent act to silence someone a group doesn’t agree with, then absolutely. And it’s not… NOT… even in the same ballpark as pointing at a ‘Natural Born Killers’ and saying “That there movin’ pitcher makes people kill!” Holding up a work of fiction (like ‘Catcher in the Rye’) and insisting that it incites violence is like holding up a copy of ‘Playboy’ and saying it incites masturbation. ‘Tis not the book, but the hand of the book-looker that commits the act.

But there’s a fundamental difference with William Donohue’s war-like chatter in regards to ‘Dogma’. He’s not discerning the flick as a work of fiction that people shouldn’t lend much credence to. He’s maintaining that it’s out and out blasphemy – and worse, he’s selling this to a wide, disparate group of the faithful. Their reactions may manifest themselves in postcards that say they disagree with ‘Dogma’ and urge us to reconsider releasing the film (of which there are many), or threats of violence against anyone remotely involved with the film (of which there are also many).

For anyone to point to the League and maintain that if anyone gets hurt over this movie, the League is going to be held responsible is NOT the same thing as some conservatives maintaining that Hollywood is to blame for Columbine. They’re not even in the same ballpark. Bill Donohue and the League have made their position clear from the get-go: ‘Dogma’ is a blasphemous, evil work, that they object to and want to bury. And in saying as much, he’s used questionable terms and phrases that can be (and apparently has already) construed as a call-to-arms, as it were. Now we’ve made our position clear: if anyone… ANYONE… gets hurt in the process of their protest, we’re holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. What does that mean? It means exactly this: if anyone… ANYONE… gets hurt in the process of their protest, we’re holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. Does that amount to much in, say, a court of law? Probably not. If someone DOES get hurt, I imagine we’d have a hard time convincing the court system that Bill Donohue and the League should be held responsible. No – this was just a private (mind you, the letter that was sent to Bill Donohue was not a public, soap-boxy affair; it was done quietly, so as not to make a grand-standing deal about it) conversation between two parties, so as to make our position understood. You’ll note that, again, no one from the Weinstein side of the equation is fanning the flames in print, looking for the war of words Bill Donohue seems to desire.

One party would just like to simply distribute its pro-faith/pro-Catholic (oh the irony in all of this) film, while the other party is rattling sabers very publicly, drumming up far more interest in the movie than it’s probably due (as the filmmaker, I’m depressed by the expectation the League is saddling this film with; folks heading into the theatre based on all the League has said about the film, hoping to kick back for two hours worth of church-bashing are going to be sadly, sadly disappointed in how devout and faith-friendly the flick actually is).

And I’ll point out that I, myself, have never been contacted by William Donohue or anyone from the Catholic League. Why not, you may ask? Because I’m the very small broom-handler in this trumped-up witch-hunt. No – Mike Eisner is the target here, folks; so much so that – even though ‘Dogma’ is no longer a Disney or Miramax film – Bill Donohue is demanding that Disney dump Miramax now. Why? What does that have to do with anything at this point? It’s about publicity, friends. You want national attention, you don’t attack the ‘Clerks’ guy; you go after the head of one of the most widely recognized corporations in the world. And even when the wind’s been taken out of the sails of your attack (ie – Dinsey no longer has anything to do with ‘Dogma’ domestically), you create some other new issue (like “Well… Disney should dump Miramax! Yeah! That’s it!”) out of something small (like a letter that quietly states our standing on the thousands of threats we’ve received, since Bill Donohue started his anti-‘Dogma’ campaign).

And in the midst of all this sad politicing, I find my faith in Christ is even stronger than it was before, and I find myself really sympathizing with the Man. Could you imagine having to watch this and all the far, far worse inanity carriedout in your name, when your central message was one of peace and tolerance? And pile upon that the fact that all the money the Catholic League will have raised for their ‘war’ against ‘Dogma’ would’ve been far, far better spent clothing and feeding the poor (and before ya’ll go pointing fingers, let me assure you – doing so only as a pre-defense, and not as any sort of glory-hounding grandstanding – that a sizeable portion of what I annually make goes toward charity and Christian acts).

A BOARDER QUESTIONS : “Oh, and an interesting thought about unlimate blame: if you believe that the Christian bible is “God’s Word” then, untimately, their God is responsible for telling his desciples to commit violence in his name. Should we sue their god?”

BACK TO KEV : No. God doesn’t have enough liquid assets. Sure, the Lord has the planet, but we already swiped that from the Almighty ages ago (or, at least, so we think).

I have no desire to sue God, thank you; nor anybody else for that matter. But the Bible is still REPUTED to be God’s words, while we’ve seen first-hand that what William Donohue has said were HIS words. I don’t see God in the pages of the New York Post, blabbing on about ‘Dogma’, or rather, Disney.

I grow weary from talking this to death. I’m not Lenny Bruce (in many, many ways), so in the future, I’d like to limit the amount of constitutional rights arguments I have to comment on. Can’t we talk about dick and fart jokes, and even the Lord instead?

Oh right – that’s what got me into this position in the first place.