Darn those pesky reviewers who will read deep meaning into Mel Gibson's films, when all he intended was that we be entertained by endless graphic violence! Take yesterday's Grauniad as an example. The "Society" supplement included a discussion of the piece by Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and a lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. He notes criticism such as that we've already seen.

Apocalypto has been broadly condemned for its racist stereotyping, and historians have pointed out that mass human sacrifice was unknown in Mayan culture.

And he also notes its obvious evangelical intent:

The film's final scene is a shocker. As the gorefest plays itself out, a boat rows ashore bringing Spanish conquistadors and a monk holding high a simple cross. The Mayans look on dumbstruck. The old sacrificial system is about to give way to Christianity. Thus Gibson redescribes the genocide conducted by the conquistadors as a morality tale in which Christianity saves indigenous peoples from the Mayan death cult.

But his main point is that the notorious anti-semite has used the Mayans as a synonym for Jews.

But it's not really Mayans that are in view here. And perhaps that's why Gibson didn't care enough to get the cultural references right. Unfortunately this film is yet another chapter in his none too healthy obsession with Judaism. For Mayan pyramids read Jewish temple. Gibson knows that Jewish temple worship only involved animal sacrifice. None the less, his Mayan high priest draws from some of the worst caricatures of the bloodthirsty Jew as invented during the middle ages.

He's also concerned that the movie represents a sort of theological thinking that Jesus appears to have specifically opposed:

The root cause is a theology associated particularly with Anselm and Calvin. Human beings are wicked and can only make it to heaven if they are punished for their sin, thus righting the scales of justice and wiping clean the slate. The problem is, human wickedness is so deep that the required punishment would be too much for us to bear. So Christ offers to take our place, accepting our punishment in the form of an excruciating crucifixion. It's the story of salvation, as read by the religious right. All sin must be paid for with pain....

Jesus put it pretty clearly when he quoted his favourite passage of the Hebrew scriptures: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. The retributive logic that sin can be cancelled by pain is just what Christ resisted.

Now, this is one of the articles on which the Guardian has invited comments, and they are as entertaining as the one on the Intelligent Design apologia, but in a different way. LabanTall is a believer in the sort of violent Christianity that Fraser and Jesus criticise, and has spotted that our correspondent has an obviously Jewish name:

If it's true that Mr Fraser is a convert from Judaism, my theory is that the Chief Rabbi sent him undercover - as a 'sleeper' - for a joke, to see how idiotically right-on a Church of England vicar could get before he was rumbled and thrown out. He's discovered that the CoE is a broad church - any amount of liberal lunacy is acceptable.

Leftwingorthodoxjew breaks rank with the Conspiracy to assure him that he is right on the mark with his suspicions:

sure you have Fraser rumbled - I can reveal his real name is Emmanuel Goldstein, he is also related to Lazer Wolf the butcher

It is a well known fact that the Chief Rabbi sends sleepers to all the major faiths (we draw the line of course at Scientology) and we are all having a big laugh about it at the expense of the gullible Christians...

just off to bed to grow my horns a bit longer now - good night

A Christian snuff movie that links blood with salvation—The Guardian, 10th January 2007.