Nightcrawler/Religious & Spiritual Discussion

the_lone_bamf · Post by **the_lone_bamf** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:43 am

I'm so happy that people are insterested in this. I really love the religious aspect of NIghtcrawler's character- it makes me feel sad sometimes though- because I think the writers are more used to writing about political intrigue with mutants or things blowing up and are used to catering to people who think "Church SUXXORZZXXZZ! It's all hypocrites!!!" that they themselves don't know enough about Catholicism or the kind of faith that Nightcrawler is supposed to have to make it believable.

Lauren · Post by **Lauren** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:55 am

Honestly, sometimes I wonder why Chuck had to do certain things with Kurt. Like having his parents just happen to have sex in a church? No, that's not saying something! come on, chuckie...

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:10 am

He was indeed saying something: he was saying that Azazel had absolutely no respect for anything whatsoever. None for religion, none for Baron Wagner, and none for Mystique. He was (is) a selfish, ends-justify-the-means, I-do-whatever-I-want personality. Seducing someone in a church (and then summarily abandoning her) is a good way of showing all that in a very short frame of time.

Of course it was disrespectul. Even blasphemous. It was meant to be.

I'll be honest: for the longest time, I didn't understand or agree with Catholicism at large, either. The sticking points for me were reproductive rights. (They still are, really. I think that at the very least a woman should be able to choose not to conceive in the first place.) But now that I've studied more, I can undestand much more of the tenets and rituals.

Unfortunately, Lone Bamf, I think you're probably right in that most peopele who read or write comics don't know very much about any type of faith. Discussing faith in America is considered a bit "gauche" for some reason. Part of it may be from constantly being assaulted with "convert or burn in hell" messages, but another part might be because some people take the separation of Church and State a little too far.

As I've matured, I've realized that faith is very important to a society. Even if the bulk of the people no longer actively practice it, the subreferences are a form of verbal shorthand, and the social mores are thoroughly engrained. I've started studying different religions and philosophies as a way of understanding different cultures, and what their driving views may be.

thylacine · Post by **thylacine** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Quote: "WHAT?! your uncle makes her do stuff and she's sick like that?! Can I please know where he lives so I can smack him! I'll pray for your mom though, hope she gets better!"

Thank you, Lauren. She's worried and I am too. It might be her liver. She never drank, but there was a "spot" on the x-ray. My uncle lives in a Boston suburb!

You are right that many writers today do not have any respect for religion of any type. Perhaps they are trying to show how "liberal" they are? Today it's "cool" to insult religion. It's like, 'see how cool this is? It insults Christians, so it must be so cool!' It just means that they need to grow up!

I agree, it was sick and bizarre for Azazel and Mystique have sex in a church.

I also agree that birth control should be allowed. I don't believe in encouraging promiscuity, though. And I don't think it's the place of public schools to pass out birth control to sixth graders, either! But married people cannot afford to raise 20 kids! In the 1930's, you needed 20 kids to work a farm. Today, you can't feed them all! I love the Catholic church, but you gotta get real. The leaders are elderly, and they are living in the past, maybe? It needs younger leadership.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:09 pm

Originally posted by thylacine
I also agree that birth control should be allowed. I don't believe in encouraging promiscuity, though. And I don't think it's the place of public schools to pass out birth control to sixth graders, either! But married people cannot afford to raise 20 kids! In the 1930's, you needed 20 kids to work a farm. Today, you can't feed them all! I love the Catholic church, but you gotta get real. The leaders are elderly, and they are living in the past, maybe? It needs younger leadership.

Younger and more modern leadership is something that will never happen in the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox). I had it explained to me this way:

The church isn't concerned with updating to modern standards. It's there to reinforce ancient, immutable values. When a new problem comes along (say, the spectre of human cloning), the moral implications are interpreted using the old, established traditions and rules. The Truth is supposed to be Truth for all ages and all times, not Truth sometimes and not others.

While the shakier interpretations of those universal Truths have been known to change with the climate (big example: the Southern Baptists at one time used the Bible to *defend* slavery instead of attack it), ideally those interpretations are to be made with careful, thoughtful deliberation for all time.

So why does the RC Church forbid birth control (besides abstinance or the "rhythm method" )? I'm not really sure. I think it's on the grounds that not having to worry about pregnancy and repercussions can cheapen the act and invite promiscuity. But if so, there should be nothing to prevent a married couple from using such methods. After all, they've fulfilled all of the requirements. I believe that the hard and fast rule of "never ever, no matter what" is an incorrect interpretation of Tradition and Canon, based on the old idea of "Go forth and multiply".

One other thing: I can now understand the reason behind "no sex before marriage"... but it's taken me a long time to figure it out. Yes, it makes sense... but it isn't being explained. When all you get is "It's a Sin! Because God said it's a Sin! So don't question, or you'll burn forever!", it isn't exactly helpful. As a matter of fact, that kind of authoritarian garbage simply invites teen rebellion. If ministers, priests, and so on would take just a few minutes to EXPLAIN, they'd save themselves (and their flock) a great deal of hardship and teen pregnancies. If you're old enough to seriously think about having sex, you're old enough to understand the church's position on it. THIS is what they should be telling you, instead of just sending you to your room for "insolence".

Oh, and the explanation? The reason behind the decree, besides to stop unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs?

1) Sex creates a very powerful bond. People who just have sex easily with everyone are refusing that bond, and it leads to treating people like objects. It also leads to being treated like an object. Ever wondered by "Easy Susie", the class party girl, is both popular with the boys and demeaned behind her back? There ya go.

2) That bond is so powerful it changes a relationship. If the relationship isn't mature enough, it gets stunted. Kind of like a bonsai tree, it'll never grow any further. Sex is really meant to be a "capper", a fulfillment, to a mature relationship.

3) Casual sex can be used as a form of emotional blackmail. If you have sex with someone, and then it turns out the guy/gal is a complete loser, it's a LOT harder to drop them, let alone refuse a request (or demand) for more sex.

Marriage is one of the few obvious and universally accepted ways of making sure that relationship is mature. You're supposed to have a long enough engagement to be sure of yourselves and explore your relationship before the final seal. (That is, ideally. I'm not going to get into the fact that half of all marriages in America end in divorce....

)

My personal take on it is that it's not so much the religious and legal ceremony that's important as being in that committed and mature relationship. Sometimes, it just isn't possible to have that sheet of paper that makes your union "legal". But does that mean expressing your love is sinful and wrong? As long as you're bonded to each other, in a stable and committed relationship, then I'd have to say you're in the right. You're fulfilling all the moral requirements.

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:30 pm

Originally posted by Maelstrom
One other thing: I can now understand the reason behind "no sex before marriage"... but it's taken me a long time to figure it out. Yes, it makes sense... but it isn't being explained. When all you get is "It's a Sin! Because God said it's a Sin! So don't question, or you'll burn forever!", it isn't exactly helpful. As a matter of fact, that kind of authoritarian garbage simply invites teen rebellion. If ministers, priests, and so on would take just a few minutes to EXPLAIN, they'd save themselves (and their flock) a great deal of hardship and teen pregnancies. If you're old enough to seriously think about having sex, you're old enough to understand the church's position on it. THIS is what they should be telling you, instead of just sending you to your room for "insolence".

Oh, and the explanation? The reason behind the decree, besides to stop unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs?

1) Sex creates a very powerful bond. People who just have sex easily with everyone are refusing that bond, and it leads to treating people like objects. It also leads to being treated like an object. Ever wondered by "Easy Susie", the class party girl, is both popular with the boys and demeaned behind her back? There ya go.

2) That bond is so powerful it changes a relationship. If the relationship isn't mature enough, it gets stunted. Kind of like a bonsai tree, it'll never grow any further. Sex is really meant to be a "capper", a fulfillment, to a mature relationship.

3) Casual sex can be used as a form of emotional blackmail. If you have sex with someone, and then it turns out the guy/gal is a complete loser, it's a LOT harder to drop them, let alone refuse a request (or demand) for more sex.

They are explaining it that way now, at least they did at the Catholic high school I went to.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:10 pm

I have to say that I like that the Catholic church isn't updating to mach the times. Do you want a church that makes things easy, and changes its morals to fit what is socially acceptable? I wouldn't. Morals are morals, especially ones that pretain to religion. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's magicly not a sin anymore.

As for birth controll, I can understand where they're coming from, though I don't agree completely. I'd rather see people that are having sex anyway, use something to prevent pregnancy rather than have an abortion. And it's really a married couples choice on weather to procreate or not. But still, rather than bend on these topics, I think that it's important that such a grounded instituation as the Catholic church, holds to its guns and doesn't conform. Even if I occasionaly dissagree, I like that I can always know where my church stands. They're constant and not sending contradicting messages, which is rare today. A church that morphs morals with the time, isn't being true to the origional concepts of their faith.

I also felt that Azzy in the church with Mysique was a very pwerful way to depict his true dark charicter. It was meant to be offensive. That's how the point was really driven home.

Lauren · Post by **Lauren** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:33 am

I know I'm kinda switching things, but did anyone see South Park tonight? I thought that was actually a good episode especially the message in the end

This Mormon kid walks up to Stan, who kept berating him the whole time because of his faith and says,

"All I wanted was to be your friend, but you were too busy being all high and mighty to see past my religion."

thylacine · Post by **thylacine** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

1. That episode was on before. That is a really good episode. Everyone should watch it. I know a lot of people who immediately tell me that I'm "ignorant" and "uneducated" because I'm Catholic. That's not fair. They don't even bother to get to know a person, they just jump on that.

2. And you are right about those things, Maelstrom.

3. I still don't think that Marvel should have had Mystique having sex in a church. It was sick and tawdry. Janet Jackson apologized on national TV, and so can Marvel!

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:31 am

The point of it was that it was sick. It was meant to be offensive. It showed the true charicter of them both. They weren't condoning it at all. If Marvel was like "hey wouldn't it be hot to have them bang in a church?" I'd totally agree with you, but that wasn't the case. It was done because they're disrespectful, shadey people who don't give a damn about anything sacred. It was a powerful point. It also makes a stark contrast between kurts faith and his parents complete disregard for it. He's good despite his genetics.

Wolvertique · Post by **Wolvertique** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:46 pm

The one people should apologize for is the latest James Bond movie, where James and his latest female sidekick were making out in a real Buddhist temple. Disgusting.

Marvel should apologize for having Azazel to begin with, IMO. It's much better to go with the standard "Kurt's father was Baron Wagner" storyline. I also think it detracts from the somewhat sympathetic/redeemable character Mystique usually is portrayed as in everything I've seen.

Lauren · Post by **Lauren** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:55 pm

mmm yeah and not to go completely off topic, she wasn't even sorry for throwing him over the waterfall in that one!

Back on topic, I onc watched this movie Revealations and these to people just scew right there in a chuch AND THEY WERE THE GOOD GUYS! *sigh*

Wolvertique · Post by **Wolvertique** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:36 pm

"she wasn't even sorry for throwing him over the waterfall in that one!"
Eesh. Marvel sucks sometimes.

thylacine · Post by **thylacine** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:41 pm

Quote: "Marvel should apologize for having Azazel to begin with, IMO. It's much better to go with the standard "Kurt's father was Baron Wagner" storyline." That's right. This Azazel person is a ridiculous character and doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to be offensive to fans.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:54 pm

Originally posted by Lauren
mmm yeah and not to go completely off topic, she wasn't even sorry for throwing him over the waterfall in that one!

Does that really surprise anyone? Mystique is a sociopath. She has no morals, conscience, or anything remotely resembling a sense of guilt. She plays people as if they're her own personal toys. The rest of the episode featured her doing such wonderful, socially redeeming things as:

Setting up one of her servants to rape another for no apparent reason, except it was fun.

Bedding any man she could find behind her husband's back, apparently in a bid to become pregnant.

Making out with/being seduced by Azazel in a church.

Killing her husband once he started to suspect something might be wrong. And by the way she had that dagger conveniently placed under her pillow, it must have been something she was coldly calculating for a long time.

Throwing her newborn over a waterfall after reciting a litany of inconvenient and unhappy things that SHE will have to go through to cover everything up. In this litany, she blames everyone but herself.

I believe that the point the writers were making with this story (or at least trying to make) was that Kurt turned out a wonderful human being despite the absolute depravity of his birth parents and conception. As they were using religious things in a blasphemous way to drive home this point, it didn't bother me so much. There's a difference between just casually, thoughtlessly tossing in improper religious images and a calculated attempt at revulsion and horror. In The Excorcist, the whole thing was FILLED with blasphemous images, and it worked very well because they were literally fighting the devil himself. It highlighted the contrast between good and evil. Now, I'm not comparing the storyline with The Exorcist, because Azazel isn't the actual JudeoChristian Satan (despite the fact he seems to have adopted the role for political gain or ego purposes). But the blasphemous scene of sex in a church was acceptable to me because it was a shorthand way of showing both characters in a dreadful light, thereby highlighting the contrast between them and their religious, gentle son.

The way the story was executed... well, let's say I had serious issues with those issues.

But that wasn't so much the storyline itself as the way slow. Plodding. Manner. It. Was. Told. Andthen gotshovedintoasingleissueathteendbecausetheyranoutoftimeorsomething.

bluefooted · Post by **bluefooted** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:42 pm

What she said... I mean, I agree completely. I actually really liked that issue (428, I think) because it showed just what a thoughtless and self-centered bitch Mystique is. I think the art emphasizes the point that these are two horrible people profaning something sacred. And, yet, they manage to produce something beautiful

Particularly, I liked how the inside of the church was depicted - kind of glowingly lit, warm - it looked like a holy place. So, I think this scene does have symbolic meaning - that the church is not 'reduced' or profaned by their act, because it's power comes from something that they don't understand, faith and belief. In the end, the act itself is redeemed by Kurt's own faith and goodness. In other words, I don't think Marvel needs to apologize, at least, not for this

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:53 pm

I don't think Marvel should apologize. It's there own comic. We aren't being forced to read it or buy it. I do think that the whole Arc with Kurt's father could have been explained much more simply instead of creating some big dramatic and unnecessary story, but Marvel can do whatever the hell they want without having to apologize because they own the goddamn comic. Hopefully after that arc, they'll just stray from the subject and continue the comics as if the whole Azazel thing never happened.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:21 pm

I agree. I've heard so many people talking about how kurt's emotional responce should be put into a story, but why drag out a weak, already drawn out plot line further. Maybe if it hadn't gotten so long to begin with, I'd agree that there should be a folow up, but by the end of the arc I was bored with the entire thing.

And it's a little off to me that Marvel did do this entire Satan-esqu story. They changed around an entire 5 or 6 part arc of X-Statix because they didn't want people loyal to princess Diana to be offended.... but to hell with good christians? I don't think that they have to appologize though. Like I said before, it was to prove a point and not just done off the cuff to insult or alienate anyone. In retrospect, that's probably why they did alow it. The Diana arc was just for fun, and this one did (in theory) have a point.

Bamf Bunny · Post by **Bamf Bunny** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:16 pm

Originally posted by Maelstrom
Ever wondered by "Easy Susie", the class party girl, is both popular with the boys and demeaned behind her back?

Sexism?

Mystique is a sociopath. She has no morals, conscience, or anything remotely resembling a sense of guilt.

Not as Claremont used to write her. Mystique couldn't bring herself to attack Arcade's Nightcrawler robot because of her affection for Kurt. She was, arguably, like Magneto: a villain, but a human villain with motivations.

Lauren · Post by **Lauren** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:54 am

Yes, I rather liked the old Mystique and not this heartless witch they've been making her into. Even in unlimited four when she said she didn't care, you could tell she was lying when she realized it was really kurt she was talking to, why else would she let go and let herself fall down that waterfall to save them?

frankly, it would have been nice to have more input from Kurt while all this stuff was going on.

Wolvertique · Post by **Wolvertique** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:56 am

I agree. Mystique is not, in anything I've ever seen her in, from cartoons to comics, a sociopath with no morals or heart. She is instead someone on the edge of redemption, if she could just get over her pride ... heck, in Evolution she takes great risks to help Rogue and give her a friend, too.

The Drastic Spastic · Post by **The Drastic Spastic** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:25 am

Awwww, Gaz is picking up on my speech patterns.

Originally posted by Wolvertique
heck, in Evolution she takes great risks to help Rogue and give her a friend, too.

Uh? She didn't wanted to help Rogue, she was using her. I'm not sure where you got the idea she was ever trying to help Rogue.

I found the Mystique in the Draco prequel to be easy to sympathize with, or at least see where her motivation was coming from. :

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 7:15 am

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
Awwww, Gaz is picking up on my speech patterns.

Has I? I really has'nt notesed that my speeach are silimar to yurs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway....I hate when they make villians actually villians and not something you can slightly pity or relate to. I mean, villians are so 2D when they have no obvious motivation. Mystique does have the motivation of wanting humans dead because she was most likely taunted when she was younger, but so were others, I'm sure. I wish they would give villians more personality and less to hate about them.

Wolvertique · Post by **Wolvertique** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:08 pm

::shrug:: I think that her motives might have been partly selfish, but they were obviously also to give Rogue a friend IMO.

Warbird · Post by **Warbird** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:20 pm

I sort of got the feeling that she initialy started to befriend Rouge to get close to the X-Men, and I mean it in a bad way. By the end though, I think that she did realize the Rouge needed a friend outside of the X-Men and tried to be that. I mean she took Rouge to that concert, if I remember right, just becasue she was getting down. It was done to cheer her up and not to exploit her. So at first she was using her, but I think later it was more out of sympathy.

They also showed this side of her when she wanted to connect with Kurt. She wanted to do it just because he is her son, and never intended for it to be a situation with potential for his well being to be endangered. It also is shown when the Professer goes in and tells her that Kurt had turned out to be a good person. She looked so heart sick.

Anyway, I've always simpathized with both Mystique and Magneto's motives. I agree that's why they're such good villians. There's very universaly human motives behind them. Magneto's are a little less normal, but given his background, understandable.