“New Muhammad biopic drives the anti-Hollywood crowd nuts” 

You know, sometimes you just have to put politics aside and take a moment to admire the tactics of your opponents, because no matter how you slice it, that is one gorgeous humdinger of a headline.

At a glance, the headline intentionally furthers the whole “conservatives are intolerant” narrative with the inference that I somehow have a problem with a big-budget biopic about the prophet Muhammad. Later in his piece, Goldstein doubles down on that smear with this:

But as usual, the news has aroused a storm of derision from conservative bloggers, who always find a way to be offended by any high-minded Hollywood project.

Odd… Especially when the very first sentence – the opening line — of my piece says the exact opposite:

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a respectful, big-budget biopic of the prophet Muhammad[.]

Nowhere in Goldstein’s 650-plus worder does he quote that. But you have to remember that Goldstein’s not a journalist. He’s an ideological warrior who writes about movies (so am I … but I admit it), and so I tip my hat in admiration to his headline — a well-executed opening salvo.

The headline, however, is not just about smearing me. He’s after the whole “anti-Hollywood crowd” (i.e., conservatives). If you read Goldstein’s entire piece you’ll see that only yours truly is referenced or quoted. But that’s inconvenient, so one guy magically becomes a “crowd” and a “storm of derision from conservative bloggers.”

Don’t get mad, it’s the L.A. Times… I’m lucky every reference doesn’t read, “Small-Child-Hater John Nolte.”

The rest of Goldstein’s post just tries to make the same lame point that I (i.e., a “crowd” of “bloggers”) have some kind of issue with the Muhammad movie — blah, blah, blah — mentions a film that portrays Christians in a positive light (“a” film — as in “one” – as in I wouldn’t have bothered) — but here’s my second favorite quote:

Nolte conveniently forgets that the prime reason why Hollywood studios kept their distance from “Passion of the Christ” was because the film was viewed by many as offering an anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews, not because anyone had a lack of regard for Christians.

Good grief, where to begin? I know … let’s take Goldstein at his word:

First off, every single Hollywood studio interpreting a faithful retelling of the Gospels as “anti-Semitic” is its own form of ignorance and anti-Christian bigotry. Secondly, if those same studios were just as eager to “keep their distance” from films “many view” as bigoted portrayals of Christians, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios wouldn’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic, but as we now know throwing a little urine on Christ and stereotyping Christians as falling for a drop of piss as a divine sign is perfectly okay.

To hear Goldstein tell it, Hollywood studios won’t go near a film “many view” as anti-Semitic, but this was okay. And so was this. And this. And this. And a confession. And this. And this. And…

Look what I did. I listed a whole bunch of  high-profile studio films that “many view” as anti-Christian released by the very same studios who refused to release a film “many view” as anti-Semitic.

I’d list the independent films and television episodes “many view” as anti-Christian but the Internet only holds so much data.

I admire Nolte’s passion, but I can’t say that he’s made much of a case.

Then I thank you for making it for me.

Yeah, sure, every once in a while something that treats Christians fairly pops out of an industry that considers the very foundation of the Christian faith — the Gospels — anti-Semitic. And while these films are appreciated, they’re also notable exceptions. But when it comes to the serial offense of denigrating, ridiculing, stereotyping and marginalizing — anyone with one good eye and a shred of intellectual honesty knows full well that Christians stand alone.

So please don’t piss on my God and tell me it’s raining.