Comedy Central’s own statement on the show describes it as the story of “JC (Jesus Christ) wanting to escape his father’s enormous shadow and to live life in NYC as a regular guy … meanwhile his all-powerful yet apathetic father would rather be playing video games than listening to JC recount his life in the city.”

The group held a teleconference earlier today to urge advertisers not to support inflammatory programming and let it be known the show won’t go through the production process without a stiff fight.

Media Research Center president Brent Bozell says the project is “designed to mock and ridicule” Christianity.

“This is a deliberate attempt by Comedy Central to be as offensive as they can,” Bozell says, adding a petition aimed at stopping the show before it begins drew 93,000 signatures in just one week. “You don’t have to be Christian to be offended by this.”

Bozell says the network’s “glaring” double standard regarding the treatment of religion has been apparent for quite some time.

“They won’t do anything to denigrate the Muslim faith. On the other hand, for years it has shown a desire to mock and ridicule Jesus Christ, Christians and God the Father,” Bozell says.

While the network’s double standard regarding religion “jumps off the page,“ Bozell says all religions should be treated with respect.

The group also debuted a four-minute video montage on its official web site detailing previous examples where Comedy Central programming trashed both Jesus Christ and the Pope.

Nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved says people should consider whether the network would produce a similar show, but one focusing on the Prophet Muhammed.

They could call it “The Big Mo,” Medved says, and the story would be all about Muhammed moving into New York City basement apartment and marrying a nine-year-old girl.

Even if every major Muslim leader promised such a show wouldn’t result in violence, Comedy Central still wouldn’t produce it, he says.

“They don’t want to hurt the sensibilities of two million American Muslims,” Medved says. “Comedy Central won’t do that to decent Muslims because it’s so wounding, unnecessary and mean. So why doesn’t that apply to Christians?”

Medved, who admits much of Comedy Central’s ribald “South Park” show is funny, says a common refrain in matters like this is for the offended parties to simply change the channel.

“Your children might not be allowed to watch it but other children will. It spreads hatred,” he says. “They have friends who will watch it and will tease … is your Jesus like that?”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue says the debate over “JC” is an “important moment” in our culture.

And the boycott approach might be the best way to move forward.

“Absence a boycott I don’t think these people [at Comedy Central] will pay attention to us,” Donahue says, the best approach would be to target individual sponsors of the program.

“We can do this through a peaceful, nonviolent approach,” he adds.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of The American Alliance of Jews and Christians, says Comedy Central programs like “The Daily Show,“ “The Colbert Report” and even “The Man Show” have “added something to the culture.”

But the new program crosses a clear line, and it’s one that should upset any citizen with “cultural pride.”

“It just isn’t funny,” he says, adding that Comedy Central’s restriction on using mockery against Islam “is a pathetic amalgam of cowardice and hypocrisy.”

Bozell says not all religious humor is offensive.

“Don Rickles could do that kind of comedy. Jackie Mason could do that comedy,” he says. “There’s a good natured way of doing this … it begins with talent, which there is very little of at Comedy Central these days.”

Lapin added few people objected to films like “Sister Act” or the comedy stylings of Mel Brooks.

“Having our blessed Mother menstruating on ‘South Park’ – that’s vulgar,” he says.

Several teleconference participants recalled the reaction industry types had when challenged on the objectionable content coming out of the entertainment industry.

Donahue asked Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone directly once about his beef with today’s coarse entertainment product, and the media mogul told him he believe in artistic freedom.

Bozell had a more specific example of entertainment types ignore public complaints about their product. He sat in on a Viacom shareholders’ meeting in which a woman pleaded with the company to curtail the way it treats women on its BET channel.

“They all but laughed at her,” Bozell recalls. “It was a shocking display of indifference.”

Bozell says the newly formed group isn’t calling for a boycott at this point, even though individual members of the group may do so independently.

He predicts the ensuing backlash will be sufficient.

“I don’t think at the end of the day they’ll be a need for a boycott,” Bozell says.

“What you’re seeing here,” Medved says, “is a perfect free market solution.”

Mr. David has been blessed beyond any struggling writer, producer, actor or stand-up comedian’s wildest dreams. His total cash receipts have still not been tallied since the funds continue to pour in from “Seinfeld,” but it’s accurate to say that with what he has earned to date, he could have paid for a lot of Nancy Pelosi’s botox.

Years after helping make television history, David jumped back into the small screen with the blessing of HBO and created “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which — in line with him marching to the beat of his own drum — is done unscripted. The show has a very solid following as it is in its seventh season, which is three television lifetimes these days. Great Larry, Mazal Tov. Isn’t America grand? Bet you would only have had the career of Heidi from the Hills if you lived in Cuba. 

So what would possess Larry to create a scene where he’s at a Catholic woman’s home and accidentally pees on a portrait of Jesus hanging in her bathroom (of all places)?  I believe the motivator is pure and simple … an arrogant a sense of “I am a genius” entitlement because that’s what he’s been described as for two decades.

I’m a stand-up comedian and actress with a very high tolerance for humor. I’m also aware that comedy is subjective and what might be a falling-off-the-chair moment for one person can be an insomnia cure for another.  However, I believe that Larry knew exactly what he was doing to get a reaction. It has now become vogue to take swipes at Christianity whenever possible.  He could have picked anyone else to miss the toilet on and, by the way,  for such a genius he used the lowest common denominator of humor: the bathroom and urinating — a fine improvisational moment if there ever was one.

Let’s put our imaginary hats on and think of what the outrage would have been if this had been done to say, Muhammad—yes, exactly, lawsuits a-flying, reparations, apologies, a lifetime supply of Starbucks!! How dare you!!! But using Jesus, the Lord and Savior to at least 65% of the United States population… eh, who cares, I have a show to do and a laugh to get.  

I posted my disgust on Facebook and most people agreed. However, there are always those few who like to use freedom of speech as a replacement for freedom of being a complete jerk. One person I was arguing said, “Why don’t you stop complaining and do something, write or call HBO?”  I hate to admit this lefty had a point, but he did, so I called HBO. It took 15 minutes to get the number and an actual person on the line, who I told in a very nice way (I toned down my New Yorkness) that I was a stand-up comic open to all types of humor, but as a Christian I was insulted and found it very disrespectful. As I was speaking she let out a sigh, a big fat sigh, she then said she would make a note of it, though she did not ask my name, email — nothing!

So I guess I have to turn to the only recourse I have and cancel HBO.

“Larry David would never do this to Muslims. He doesn’t have the guts.”

That’s missing the point.

Hypocrisy or a fear of how some wacko extremist might react has nothing to do with this. Hollywood constantly singles out Christians for cruel ridicule and the worst kind of stereotyping for one simple reason…

They hate us.

They hate our guts.

There’s nothing more complicated to this question than that.

I promise you that if every Muslim on the planet was as gentle as a kitten, it would still be Christians singled out by the entertainment industry at every opportunity.

Now, you wouldn’t know it from following modern-day pop culture, but we Christians do have a sense of humor and are just as capable of laughing at ourselves as anyone. But we also know when we’re being singled out, when we’re being laughed at and the difference between good-natured and mean-spirited. We acknowledge that there are many good people working in Hollywood who oppose this kind of bigotry and double-standard, just not enough of them to put a stop to it…

Here’s how much they hate us, how much they want to hurt us — and it goes way beyond a willingness to damage their own bottom line…

Good people hurt innocent people every day. We lose our tempers, say things in anger and generally come to regret it later. That’s one of the rougher parts of dealing with the human condition. And when good people watch Larry David piss on Christ, his mocking and blatant disrespect makes them angry. Some might even think, ”I should produce a YouTube of me pissing on Hollywood’s god – Barack Obama!” Which wouldn’t be a difficult or expensive thing to do in this digital age.

But good people don’t follow through on such things. Eventually, their better nature takes over as they think about how such a cruel and disrespectful act might hurt those they know who admire Obama … or the president’s two young daughters. 

Nothing, however, stopped Larry David — not the time, logistics, planning or funds needed to put this cruel episode together. David’s not a dumb man, and neither are the many people who made the production possible. Every one of them knew exactly what they were doing, what the outcome would be and what Christ means to His followers. 

And they relished every moment of it; the planning, execution and most of all, the uproar and disappointment that followed.

Anger puts cruel thoughts in your head. Hate’s the fuel required to take you across the finish line.

There’s no shortage of fuel in Hollywood.

A normal celebucrat post has a pull quote or two you can highlight and make sport of, but Simmons is all pull quote — a bonanza of crazy — so where to begin? Hey, I know, let’s play a game. Here are ten quotes, nine are from Simmons, one is not. Can you pick out the lunacy that doesn’t belong? 

1. The president’s honest attempt to promote world peace through the same methods taught by Jesus Christ are met with contempt by a country whose collective consciousness is extraordinarily fearful and at times, sacrilegious.

2. Remember, they killed Mahatma Gandhi. They killed John F. Kennedy. They killed Martin Luther King. They killed Malcolm X. They killed Robert F. Kennedy. They killed Yitzhak Rabin. They killed many of the great dreamers. With all of the fearful men running our media, we no longer have to kill the dreamer, it is possible just to kill the dream.

3. Sometimes I’m amazed that we are still breathing. With horrible abuses of animals, the planet and human kind, it’s amazing that we are still here.

4. Our lack of compassion and love could actually consume us. However, we are still being given signs from the universe, glimpses of hope and opportunities to rise up and live up to our promise.

5. Hey, man, you don’t talk to Colonel. You listen to him. The man’s enlarged my mind. He’s a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he’ll… uh… well, you’ll say “hello” to him, right? And he’ll just walk right by you. He won’t even notice you. And suddenly he’ll grab you, and he’ll throw you in a corner, and he’ll say, “do you know that ‘if’ is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you”… I mean I’m no, I can’t… I’m a little man, I’m a little man, he’s… he’s a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas…

6. America, our country is under indictment. And we will be found guilty if we don’t act. If we allow these nasty, malicious people, who harbor so much hate with views that separate us from the rest of world, to continue to tell us how to think, we will be found guilty of charge one.

7. If we allow leaders of a political party that only know one word, and that is “no,” to work against the best interests of our country, we will not only be found guilty of charge four, we will be sentenced by God to self-destruction.

8. And we have allowed hurtful, spiteful and small-minded people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to scare the love out of us.

9. In one of the most telling moments of the past nine months, the skepticism that the President was met with after his compassionate speech in Cairo was shocking. He conceded nothing in that speech but love. This is the route that is prescribed to us by all of the great prophets in the Bible, Qur’an and the Torah.

10. Before the president even had time to wish his dog a happy birthday and kiss his daughters on the cheek as they left for school, the vicious, hate-filled and at times, racist, attacks began.

If you’re still having trouble choosing, read through them once more and take note of the only quote that doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies.

We [Americans] see America, from the Pilgrims who signed the Mayflower Compact to the Biblical scholars… who birthed the nation, to the spirit of sacrifice and charity that thrives to this very day, not as a nation of Christians (for that freedom is at the deepest core of our common philosophy) but as a Christian nation.

It seems that there is a growing belief that because our Founders were stalwart advocates for religious liberty, and because some of them had very nuanced and sometimes cynical views about organized religion, the United States was somehow conceived to be a secular nation. This belief is not only untrue, but detrimental to an adequate understanding of the underlying political philosophy of the founding, not least of all because it envisions the government as the nation instead of merely the organization through which the nation conducts its civil affairs, and more importantly because it betrays the singular belief that undergirds the entire American experiment: That the rights of man come not from government but from God.

When the Founders crafted the Constitution of the United States, they were not setting about to create a nation; they were setting about to create a system of government. The people of the United States had successfully waged war against Great Britain, formed alliances with foreign powers, brokered trade, and secured national debt before the current system of government was ever established. The Constitution merely created a system of administrative and judicial structures meant to represent the nation and to conduct the affairs of the people of that nation. This is perhaps best evidenced by the opening words to the document itself: “We the people of the United States… establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The United States already existed. Its people created the Constitution to “form a more perfect Union… and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The birth of the nation occurred in 1776 when the second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It was this document that “dissolved the political bands” which connected the people of America to the people of Great Britain and assumed for them “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitled them. It was also in this document that the Founders outlined the uniquely American philosophy of the legitimate rights of the governed. “Self-evident” truths, they called them: that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not afforded by their government) with certain un-alienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Governments, says the Declaration, are formed to help man secure these rights and derive their power only from the consent of the people themselves. If government should exceed the people’s authority, or encroach upon the rights man received from his Creator (also called, in official documents by the same congress, “Providence,” “Almighty God,” “the Common Father,” “Nature’s God,” “God,” “Supreme Being,” “Holy Ghost,” and, wait for it, “Jesus Christ”), it was “the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” The Founders then go on to cite, as the moral authority from which their philosophy is derived (rectitude as they called it), the “Supreme Judge” of the world, and call upon “Divine Providence” for their protection in carrying out their God-given rights.

It was hardly a secular origin then for these United States. Instead, a founding document that proposes a theory, really a theology of government, never enacted before. The people of this country are entitled by God to independent statehood. They were created by God with rights that no government can legitimately take away. Their philosophy was deemed morally correct because it has been judged so by God, and God will protect them in the execution of war against those that would subjugated them in violation of that philosophy. This is how the Founders viewed rightful governance, and this is the sort of government that they sought to give life when, a decade later, they drafted the Constitution of the United States.

Of the four claims about God and Americans outlined in the Declaration, it was the idea that man was made by God to be free that was the most radical, and which was so pivotal. The British press mocked it openly. It is, however, at the very heart of the founding ideology. If it is God who made men free, then Liberty is not a pragmatic imperative; it is a moral one. Governments that encroach on that liberty are not only violating the preferences of the governed, they are violating the very intention of God for government. For the Founders, this idea would fundamentally redefine the relationship between government and citizen. Man does not exist to be governed; governments exist to protect man’s freedom. Man does not owe government anything, other than what is necessary to aid that government in securing his basic rights. Likewise, government does not owe man anything other than protection from those who would intrude upon his freedom, be it his fellow citizen, foreign enemies, or the government itself.

It is this idea, above all others, that marked this country as unique among the nations of the world. It is an idea so deeply held by our Founders that many actually feared making references to the rights of man in the Constitution itself. They didn’t think they needed to. They also knew that to do so might one day be interpreted to mean that those rights were not natural at all, but rather were gifts from a benevolent master called the state. When the Bill of Rights was finally added, the Congress selected the language very carefully to make clear that the document was not bestowing rights on the people, but limiting the rights of government: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble…,” “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” “The right of the people to be secure… shall not be violated…” The Constitution doesn’t grant man rights; God does. The Constitution only protects those rights from the government. The idea that the Founders believed government must exist independent of God is thereby false since their own view of the rightful place of government was in the protection of the rights granted to man by his Creator.

The tired argument that the Founders were not Christians but Deists is not only false (there were more overtly Christian men among the Founders than even supposed Deists by orders of magnitude), but more importantly, it is irrelevant. Whatever the nuances of their personal faiths, the Founders were to-a-man theists, believers in God, and in the Christian tradition. While some of them, men like Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, were skeptical of many of the miraculous claims of the Bible, they were none-the-less scholarly about and reverent toward what they saw as its philosophy, and its God. They may not have been Christians by the standards of the church, but they were certainly Christians by the standards of atheists. They believed in the God of the Bible and believed faith was critical to the workings of a free society. Not only that, but they made clear what they thought about the relationship between God and government in both word and deed. Franklin called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention and suggested spending government revenue on chaplains. Adams declared the Constitution was “made only for a moral and religious people…” and wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution, which required that its governors pledge their Christian faith in order to serve (This was considered a legitimate state law under the original reading of the First and Tenth Amendment). Jefferson spent federal revenue on Bibles, declared that the Bible should be taught in public schools, and approved of the use of federal buildings for church gatherings – including the capital building where he personally attended services during his presidency. Oh, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Of course Jefferson also, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, first coined the popular phrase, “Separation of Church and State,” which has been used for so long to inform a reading of the ‘Establishment Clause’ which seeks to excise all religious expression from public institutions. So how could he approve of the innumerable expressions of faith by himself and the government under his watch? It is important here to bear in mind the context of Jefferson’s thinking.

The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the First Amendment’s very existence might one day be taken to imply that it was the government who gave men religious freedom, not God, and therefore imply government could also take that freedom away (a possibility Alexander Hamilton had also raised in Federalist No. 84). The Baptists feared that this left open the possibility that at some point in the future the government might claim for itself the power to enforce religious edicts through civil coercion. This fear was not without historical precedent.

The original European settlers of what would become the United States of the Revolution were almost exclusively British. They were also immensely religious. That’s why they were here. After a millennia of state-religion mandated by Rome, Henry VIII had rejected the authority of the Pope in Britain and created a state-religion of his own. The Church of England made the king not only the ultimate political power in the land, but the ultimate religious authority as well. A violation of Henry’s religious positions was a violation of the law, and a violation of the law was heresy. The punishment was severe: Beheading, hanging, burning at the stake… Terrible things happen when civil and religious authority are mingled together.

The problem for Henry, and for Rome, was that a Reformation was also taking place. Men like Martin Luther and William Tyndale (who Henry had strangled and burned) had begun translating the Bible into common languages, giving the people the opportunity to explore God for themselves. What they discovered surprised them. In the Book of Exodus, God establishes a civil leader for his people in Moses. He also establishes a religious leader in Aaron. Then he does something really interesting: He commands that they remain separate forever. If the king tries to supersede the religious authority of the priesthood, God will destroy him, as he does in 2 Chronicles, cursing a king named Uzziah for conducting a religious rite in the temple. Of course, God was God of the state, as well as the religion. He gave guidance to Moses just as surely as he did to Aaron. He just precluded the civil leader from also being the religious leader. Undoubtedly, God understood that without that distinction, all kings would be like Henry VIII. Separation of church and state, then, is actually a Biblical principle.

When Jefferson’s own American forefathers, the Pilgrims, took sanctuary from religious persecution in this new world, they sought to be true to the Biblical teachings that their former rulers had violated. In America, as in Israel thousands of years before, government and religious authority would be forever separated, though just as in Israel, God would be God of both. God and religion, after all, are not the same thing. One is the Supreme Being over all, and the other is the institution by which he is taught and worshiped. Jefferson understood this distinction, which is why he could assure the Danbury Baptists that there was a “wall of separation between church and state,” ensuring that the government would never dictate or enforce religious decrees, while at the same time he also recognized God though the government, and based the legitimacy of both on him.

There is far more to say on this subject than could possibly be explored in one sitting: The fact that the opening lines of the most important state law concerning religious freedom discuss how God made the mind free though it was within his Almighty power not to as Lord of both and Author of our religion (Jefferson). There is Washington’s Presidential warning that no man can call himself a patriot and oppose religion, since it is intrinsically linked to free government. There is Congress authorizing an official translation of the Bible and Thanksgiving Proclamations calling upon Jesus Christ to forgive of our national sins. For nearly two centuries government was separated from religious authority by Jefferson’s wall, but there was simply no separation of the government and God. The Bible was read in schools, there were prayers at most public functions, churches continued to meet in federal buildings, and America’s rich Christian heritage was taught and celebrated, not denied, suppressed, and scorned. To be sure, there were always Americans of diverse faiths, but as the nation was settled by Christians, founded on the principles of Christianity, and peopled by an overwhelming majority of Christian citizens, it didn’t seem a terrible thing to consider her a Christian Nation. It was not until 1947, when the Supreme Court heard a case called Everson vs Board of Education, that the modern understanding of America as a secular nation was first introduced. In a stunning act of judicial activism, the court declared that Jefferson, in his Danbury Letter, in contradiction to earlier court rulings on the subject and to everything Jefferson himself had ever written including the Declaration and the actual letter itself, must have intended that the government be legally bound to secularism. This effectively turned two centuries of American history on its head. In the sixty years since, generations of Americans have been fed a radical reinterpretation of the Founders’ intent. Government, we are now taught, must protect the people from public expressions of, or support for, religion. God must be stripped from the public square, which is in large part why the true history of our founding has been so stripped from our schools. In this newly interpreted separation, the chief concern of our Founders seems to have been preventing anyone from encountering religion at all. That they often argued publicly that the republic could not survive without religion is ignored entirely, as is their own reliance on God for their authority to create the government in the first place. Like so many other issues in post-New Deal America, if the courts disagree with the Founders, they simply re-invent them, avoiding the sticky democratic practices of debate and legislation all together.

Since God no longer exists in government, and his history there is no longer taught, is it any wonder that millions upon millions of Americans believe, in utter opposition to the founding philosophy, that our rights come from the government? Where else would they come from? And should it be any surprise if those same Americans desire that the government give them other things as well? After all, if our rights are not by the grace of God but by the grace of government, then whoever controls the government has the ultimate authority over man. Government by definition can do no wrong. This is precisely the kind of thinking our Founders literally warred against. It is also precisely why Americans of all faiths should be proud to own America’s Christian Heritage, and why without it, America is lost.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson, “Deist”

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian Nation…” - Barack Obama, “Christian”

The big stars and directors are the cool kids – the jocks – the preppies – James Spader in “Pretty in Pink.” They own the school, strut the halls and decide who’s in and who’s out based on one’s ability and willingness to conform into one of them.

The Motion Picture Academy is the Student Council packed with James Spaders who game the system in order to keep the pecking order ordered and to their liking.

Variety and the Hollywood Reporter are the school paper. Both are staffed with wannabes and once-weres who protect the myth and clothe the emperor living for those moments when James Spader gives them a taste of the inside where they can bask in his glow.

This leaves us with the cheerleaders, the Mean Girls, the most openly cruel of the bunch — a catty, nasty gaggle of bitches unafraid to say what the others think and determined to enforce what defines a James Spader. In Hollywood the cheerleaders are the gossip rags; newspaper columns, entertainment websites and most certainly E!

James Spader loathes Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers and Heidi Montag, but mostly Miley because she represents the worst kind of threat to his kingdom: She’s already popular and a big, talented star, but she doesn’t want to be like him and therefore must be taught a lesson. And so his minions have been loosed.

Just last month, the head cheerleader, the L.A. Times, went after Miley over “the Jesus thing,” and soon after one of the cool-kid leaders himself, Jamie Foxx, blew his stack with outrage over her innocence. Tuesday it was E!:

Indeed. Gone are the days when we had a lone Kirk Cameron here, a random Mel Gibson there. Now it seems like the whole Disney talent stable is flashing a giant collective promise ring in our faces, bathing us in the virgin-white dazzle of all that metal.

Miley and the Jonas Brothers of course publicly love themselves some Jesus. Heidi Montag, too. Miley even twitters about it. A lot. (Jesus is Miley’s Neosporin? Really?) …

And that’s the new trend of “oversharing” among celebs…  At least they’re sparing us their bathroom habits-for now.

Those of you who buy into the idea that E! would like to be spared “oversharing among celebs” might want to change your middle name to “Duh.” If celebs didn’t overshare, E! wouldn’t exist. If there were laws about truth in advertising, E! would have to call themselves, “O! The Overshare Channel.”

E! also doesn’t have a problem with celebs who “love themselves some Jesus.” Sean P. Puff Diddy Daddy Combs is all about tweeting his love for Jesus – and from the looks of just the last few hours, does so a lot more than Miley. But E! is okay with that because Combs is one of them; a leftie fully engaged in the mission to spread Gomorrah throughout the land.

This isn’t about religion or celebrity oversharing, this is about the culture war – this is about a promise ring that “bath[es] us in the virgin-white dazzle of all that metal.” Because in celebrity-dom, that virgin-white dazzle is like throwing Holy Water on a Vampire.

Miley’s a target-rich environment for celebrity enforcers because she’s openly opposed to the spread of Gomorrah and therefore a threat who must be marginalized through ridicule at every opportunity. Now, Miley’s a big star and no cool kid or cheerleader can bring her down all on their own. But the plan’s bigger and more sophisticated than that.

One possible outcome is that someday, like all of us, Miley slips up in a way that allows the left to gang up and attempt to destroy her as a moral hypocrite. Call it the Miss California Playbook. But worse case, through their ridicule of Miley, the celebrity enforcers have sent an unmistakable warning to any up-and-comers who might have considered being true to who they really are and following in Miley’s moral footsteps.

The message is crystal clear: The path of least resistance to becoming one of the cool kids and spared public humiliation is to join the James Spader Collective.

Another Easter season comes and goes without a single offering from mainstream Hollywood to attract oh, say, a billion or so believers into theatres. We’re not political, they say. We’re not agenda-driven, they say. Our choices are based on profit, they say. We have to appeal to an international audience, they say.

Right.

“The Pink Panther” sequel no one asked for we get, but where’s, “The Passion II: Acts of the Apostles?”  –and anyone familiar with the Bible knows I’m not joking.

Once again Hollywood steps over dollars to make pennies on “Observe and Report” and we’re forced to return to a more tolerant Hollywood on DVD. Congratulate me, tomorrow I celebrate my first year as a Roman Catholic and here are my five favorites over this Holy Week.

–

1. The Ten Commandments (1956) – At 220 minutes, this magnificent piece of epic storytelling that will outlive every elitist snob who tries to smear it as camp, feels like 90, thanks mainly to Charlton Heston’s performance as Moses, which is bold with sincerity. Not to be forgotten is Yul Brynner as the bewildered and prideful Rameses whose masculinity and regal bearing manages to convince us that God Himself has a worthy adversary. For as long as there’s a civilization, people will watch Cecil B. DeMille’s sweeping story of Moses leading the first people God made His own out of slavery.

–

2. Jesus of Nazareth (1977) – Franco Zeffirelli’s loving, detailed and faithful telling of the life of Christ from Bethlehem to Resurrection is more than just a translation of the Gospels (mainly Matthew, Mark and Luke), it’s an enormously impressive piece of filmmaking in its realism and ability to capture your attention for over six hours. I’d like to think the historical Jesus was more accessible than Robert Powell’s reverent portrayal, but offered up in two or three-hour chunks, this well-acted and beautifully scored television film featuring Michael York, Laurence Olivier, Anne Bancroft, Anthony Quinn, James Earl Jones, Tony Lo Bianco, James Mason and many others, is a perfect cinematic way to introduce the Son of Man to your children.  

–

3. The Passion of the Christ (2004) – Were this a Good Friday list, Mel Gibson’s masterpiece would hold all five slots. For believers looking to better understand Christ’s suffering on our behalf, there’s no other emotional experience on film that even comes close. So powerful is Gibson’s story of Gethsemane to Golgotha that untold non-believers can’t help but rage against it at every opportunity.  So many factors contribute to the experience, including the use of Latin and Aramaic, but not to be overlooked are the perfect casting choices made from top to bottom, including Maia Morgenstern as Mary,  Monica Bellucci as Magdalen, Hristo Shopov as Pilate, Rosalinda Celentano unforgettable as Satan, but especially James Caviezel, who infuses Jesus with an accessible warmth and humanity in just a few flashbacks. Caviezel’s Sermon on the Mount and playful scenes with Mary are every bit as memorable and emotionally affecting as the Passion, but critics never mention those.

–

4. The Robe (1953) – The fictional story of Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton), the Roman centurian who wins Christ’s robe after overseeing the crucifixion. After the robe begins to torment him with nightmares, Marcellus sets out to learn more about this “nobody” he saw executed and in the process is changed forever and wins the love of Jean Simmons (you could do worse). This big budget spectacle, the first filmed in glorious widescreen CinemaScope (to combat the rising popularity of television), may drag in spots but is rich in theme and spirit. Epics are at their best when telling small, human stories against big backdrops. “The Robe” is not a perfect film, but adjusted for inflation it remains one of the biggest money-makers in history, and it was more than CinemaScope that kept them coming back.

–

5. Easter Parade (1948) – Nothing wrong with a little secular fun on this glorious day, and most of that fun comes from watching Ann Miller, in just a few scenes, nearly steal the movie out from under Fred and Judy. Innocent, delightful, magnificent entertainment set to Irving Berlin’s score and luscious Technicolor.

Update: Some have questioned my choice of “Easter Parade,” so let me explain: Art and artists are one of God’s great blessings and artistry reached a peak at the height of the MGM musical when story, photography, music, dance, performance, design, song, and choreography came together like never before, and probably never again. This was art designed to ennoble the human spirit and transcend differences. It may not be religious or even spiritual, but it is good.