Deadly Tradition

Anyone who is familiar with Batman probably knows about the Joker. The Dark Knight's nemesis is one of the most widely recognized villains in all of literature. The war between the brooding hero and the smiling murderer has stretched decades (dating back to the first issue of Batman, which was released in the spring of 1940). Almost any adaptation of the iconic comic book hero that is Batman features the Joker at some point, he has appeared in movies (played by notable actors such as Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Mark Hamill), television series, and a host of spin-off comic books. As humorous as the struggle between these two characters is often depicted (with the exception of The Dark Knight), in the comic books it has been given a much darker treatment. The Joker has evolved from the manic clown I grew up watching, the crazy villain with absurd plots seemingly aimed at nothing more than getting a few laughs...now he is a completely insane mass murderer. This escalation in the battle between good and evil has twisted things in a deadly matter. Gone is the man who in the cartoons was obsessed with trifles such as a patent for absurd fish , instead he has been replaced by an inhuman representation of evil, one who isn't afraid to get personal. In addition to the many civilians he has killed in the course of his war with Batman, the Joker has hit a lot closer to home, killing Jason Todd (the second Robin) and paralyzing Barbara Gordon (the first Batgirl and daughter of Batman's ally Commissioner Gordon).


In spite of this intense personal enmity, Batman chooses to stay on the straight and narrow path (though he has on occasion come close to giving into the temptation to deviate from pursuit of justice to pursuit of vengeance when it comes to the Joker). As such I felt it tied in with the recent discussions I have been involved with in regards to just war. In class this week we talked about the ethics of war: is war just? what makes it just? etc etc.


The Biblical take on this is actually a bit confusing to me, to be honest. First of all, the Ten Commandments say 'thou shalt not kill'...though this is often translated as 'thou shalt not murder'. Is this distinction key? It seems like it might, after all killing in the context of war is far different from murder. In the Old Testament the Israelites are frequently engaged in war, often at the behest of God. Additionally somebody pointed out to me that there is rather pro-war implications in the story of King David (described as a man after God's own heart), and Bathsheba. For those of you unfamiliar with this episode (David's one real screw-up), David sees a woman (Bathsheba), lusts after her, sleeps with her and gets her pregnant, tries in vain to cover this up and when unable to, has her husband killed...adultery and murder all in one story, QUITE the screw-up. This episode begins in 2 Samuel 11:1 "Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem." David was not supposed to be in Jerusalem, as king of Israel he was supposed to be at war. While this episode clearly speaks out against adultery and the murder of Bathsheba's husband, it says nothing against war, instead hinting that David should be fighting. The Old Testament is full of violence, that often leads to death at the hands of God's people. David became king after Israel's first king, Saul, disobeyed God...by taking prisoners in war instead of killing them. This all takes place after the handing down of the ten commandments. It seems to me in the context of the Old Testament war is not at all wrong, instead it is often necessary.


However in the New Testament things are different. When questioned in Matthew 22:36 on what commandment is greatest, Jesus lays down two new laws (essentially a summation of the first and second half of the ten commandments), saying: "’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Love and war are not something I can easily reconcile. Love of neighbor certainly doesn't include killing them, especially when the parable of the Good Samaritan shows us that our neighbors can/should be our enemies.

Take three on this: the New Testament commands us to submit to earthly authorities. Romans 13:1-2 points out that our government authorities have been appointed their power by God and as such we are to submit to them, for if we resist them we are resisting what God has set over us. So if the United States government chooses to go to war, is that ethical from a Christian perspective? Yes the Bible tells us to love our enemies and our neighbors and not kill...but we are to obey our governments as well. Of course this doesn't mean we should stop loving our enemies...but if the government declares war it seems that God says we are to support this. This point seems to be the one most relevant to the discussion of Batman. Oddly enough the Dark Knight's war with the Joker was mentioned in two of the three DC comic books (most of my comic book devotion going towards Marvel) I actually read that were released this week, Chris Yost's Red Robin and Grant Morrison's Batman and Robin . In Red Robin #6, the titular hero and new alter ego of Tim Drake has taken charge of a group of assassins in order to protect them from another group of killers (very complicated stuff). In an inner monologue discussing what he is doing Drake says of helping the assassins, "Part of me says they deserve it. They're reaping what they sow. But I push the thought aside. If that's how we worked, the Joker would be dead a thousand times over. That's the rule, and I hold on to it. I'm going to hold on to it forever, no matter what." Make no mistake, the war of crime that Batman and his allies fight is a war...but it is not one mandated by the government. As such, any deaths they might bring about would be murder, and as such would be against God's law regarding murder, the one law they refuse to compromise on. Morrison makes this even more explicit in issue #6 of Batman and Robin. In this issue Batman's opponent is Jason Todd (somehow resurrected), who in an odd twist has taken up the mantle of the Red Hood (the original alter ego used by the Joker). Another villain, the Flamingo, has been sent to kill the Red Hood, yet he is defeated by Jason and seemingly killed. In the aftermath, only three Robins are left (1. Dick Grayson, the original Robin, and the current Batman 2. Damian Wayne, the current Robin and son of the original Batman, 3. Jason Todd, the second Robin and current Red Hood). Jason yells at Batman "Just remember, tonight I did something even Batman couldn't do. I beat my arch-enemy." This clear reference to the Joker is followed by the appearance of Commissioner Gordon, who arrests the Red Hood, telling him that "We only let Batman do what he does because he keeps it on the right side of the law...you're a murderer. And I'm taking you to jail..." Batman's war in the name of justice is allowed because he doesn't violate the law. Morrison's story here parallels the issue discussed in regards to just war. It is permissible so long as the government allows it, otherwise it is wrong. While there are plenty of other arguments, this seems to be the only real criteria that matters in regards to war: submit to authorities.

Like Dr. David Corey said (paraphrased of course), "the just war tradition is reflection in concert to make sense of an enduring puzzle. The puzzles are the tradition, the answers are evolving." Perhaps this issue must evolve constantly, but I think the point of submission is important. Murder is wrong, but war can be right if the government declares it so...of course one must question what makes the war right rather than blindly accept what the government says, but we should submit to God in everything, and in doing so submit to the authorities he has placed over us. If the authorities say it is wrong to kill, even when killing the Joker would save lives, there is nothing we can do to justify killing.

'Nuff Said!
-Cable

P.S. I will hash out this issue of submission in future posts...while we should submit to authority, that doesn't mean authority cannot be wrong.

For Ever and Ever and Ever and etc. (The Zombie Thing)

Immortality...it's been an obsession since the beginning of recorded history. Some of our earliest documents deal with it, for example the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. In Genesis we see the fall of Man brought about by the tantalizing fruit that was washed down with the promise of "you will not surely die". The hero (or anti-hero depending on how you see things) Gilgamesh spends his time investigating different paths towards eternal life: a magical plant, constant vigilance, and monumental walls. People simply don't want to die. In the world of comic books this has become at times a humorous issue. One issue of an X-Men comic book I once read (I forget which one) depicted a discussion between several characters about superheroes dying. One of the participants in the conversation poked fun at the issue (and especially the comic book practice of frequently ret-conning deaths in order to bring back popular characters) saying in regards to death that "that trick never works". Despite this humorous take on death in comics, Marvel Comics currently has the X-Men in the midst of an event that takes a much more haunting look at death. The Necrosha crossover event (a crossover is a story that takes place over the course of several different comic book series, in this case X-Force, New Mutants, and X-Men Legacy) has the X-Men come face to face with what is essentially zombie versions of long-dead friends and foes (I am SUPER excited about the cover to the upcoming X-Force #23, shown below, which features one of my favorite dead heroes, Banshee).The zombie fad is nothing new, though it seems to be gaining ground lately with a variety of zombie-related comic books and movies etc.
The fascinating thing about zombies is that, ignoring all their blood-covered decay and limping walk, they are at their core a visualization of man’s desire for eternal life. Zombies are the undead, eternity gone wrong. I believe that there is a lesson that can be learned from all the zombies that Hollywood writers and comic book scripters are introducing us to.


In Necrosha, the X-Men first come in contact with Douglas Ramsey aka Cypher…the one problem here is that this teammate of theirs has been dead for years. He has been returned to a semblance of life by a virus (a common cause of zombies in many depictions, for example Shaun of the Dead and I Am Legend) unleashed by the vampiric mutant Selene (more on vampires in a bit). The reactions to Ramsey and other zombified mutants varies, for some it is joy, for others it is guilt, but the X-Men quickly realize that the teammates they thought were dead…are. Of course it is not easy for them to fight the foes that appear in the form of their friends, but they eventually have to come to terms with the fact that their loved ones cannot come back from the dead. Medicine has greatly helped increase our lifespan as humans, but there is nothing created in a laboratory that can create immortality, even if it is a virus manipulated by a seemingly immortal vampire.
And on the subject of vampires….in relation to Necrosha and what is perhaps the most-anticipated movie of the fall movie season, these creatures are another depiction of our obsession with death and the avoidance of it. Vampires are EVERYWHERE lately...tv show after tv show, book after book about vampires keep popping up in our pop culture of late. Foremost amongst this genre is probably the Twilight series, the popular books now being adapted to movies. Why are we so obsessed with these creatures that have permeated literature for hundreds of years? I think a large part of it is the fact that they are said to be immortal. Certainly the Twilight series focuses a great deal on this. Apart from the drug-like romance between the main characters, much of the plot centers on whether or not the series' leading lady will gain immortality as a way of forever being with her true love.


However, as the great Andy Samberg once pointed out, "life isn't all about celebrities and hunky vampires". Even the Hollywood glamour of the Twilight vampires has its drawbacks. The central vampire of the story constantly advocates against the life of a vampire, essentially saying that it is a soul-less prison. Clearly selling one's humanity for life as an immortal vampire is not the greatest path.

All of these depictions of eternal life are portrayed with some sort of flaw. Zombies are of course the walking dead, but are a mockery of the immortality that so many people desire. Vampires don't die either, but are forced to live a troubled existence, one that for many characters becomes so monotonous that it leads them to suicide (cases in Twilight and the popular tv series True Blood to name a few). It seems that the writers who are sharing all this with us have a message: these are not ways to achieve eternal life. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). Christ is the ONLY way to gain eternal life, and so many people seek other paths. All the zombie and vampire literature etc seems to be an allegory for how useless these other paths are. For some it is a 'works' mentality, thinking that by doing good deeds they can get into heaven. For others there is always some new diet or medicine that they swear will work. For others it is other religions. While there are plenty of Bible verses that deal with this, the John 14 passage makes it abundantly clear. Christ is the only path that leads to true life. As Christians, John 3:16 is heard so often that sometimes it seems cliche...however, it remains a powerful truth. "For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Christ is the Son of God, and belief in him is our one and only way of obtaining eternal life, life that is worth living. As the great Casey Stone (Calculus teacher extraordinaire) puts it: "We are all eternal beings. The question is whether you will spend eternity in the presence of God (heaven) or not in his presence (hell)". I for one choose to spend eternity in the presence of God, for that is the only eternity worth having.

'Nuff Said,
-Cable

P.S. The Necrosha series is BRILLIANT...the art is top-notch and the story has taken me captive through the first two issues, if you get a chance I recommend you check it out, either as it comes out now or once the trade paperback has been released in a couple months.

The Ethics of Consolation

For Colossus, in response to the situations I discussed in the last post, solace was found in the form of a tattoo (I'm still kicking myself for not having the issue this appeared in on hand to scan and include a picture of) or in the mindless fighting that bordered on deadly. For Wolverine it is often, surprisingly enough, found in a Japanese garden while meditating. Scott Summers (Cyclops), as seen in the third X-Men movie, attempts to find comfort in his sorrow by shutting himself off from the world. Spider-Man turned to his friends after the loss of a loved one. And Tony Stark, the hero known as Iron Man...usually just drowns his pain with alcohol.

Everyone deals with loss and pain in different ways. Superheroes are no different, and it is in times of pain that they demonstrate the humanity that so often seems hidden from us. Heroes behind masks often seem inaccessible to the masses (almost none of the adults I talk to, adults who got to live during the golden age of comic books understands what is so very real about these characters), yet when they are encountering loss it is easy for us to see ourselves in them. Mark Millar has recently taken a spin on the comic book hero we are accustomed to. In his acclaimed series Kick-Ass (soon to be a major motion picture...get excited...maybe) Millar brings us the tale of Dave Lizewski, a very ordinary high school student who chooses to become a super hero. After all, how hard can it be? He's read the literature (comic books of course), and his heart is in the right place...what else is there to the business of heroism? Lizewski dons a mask and steps into the night to fight crime...he gets beaten to a pulp and barely escapes the ordeal alive. Yet he persists...and eventually finds some degree of success as a hero. Now I'm sure there will be plenty of failure to come, but I have been unable to read the recent issues of the story as I am a poor college student and am waiting for the trade paperback to be released so I can afford it. Still, there is much to be examined in this story.


Consolation for Dave Lizewski comes in the form of a mask. While he is not dealing with loss per say, he is dealing with pain. The pain of being ordinary, pain of discontent. Lizewski is just an average student, if that, the girl he likes barely notices him, and his single dad is barely around. He retreats behind the mask because it makes him something more, something that people take notice of. The problem involved with this, and many forms of consolation, is that it can become an idol, and I think in the case of Dave Lizewski this is the case. Is the point here that heroism is wrong? Of course not, nor am I saying that seeking out friends or family or any other form of consolation is wrong. However, that should not be our first and only option.


As the Bible says, God is a comforting God. Take Isaiah 40:11 for example, "He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young." Exodus 20:3 commands us to have no other gods apart from God. In regards to idolatry, I don't mean to say for a second that when we find comfort outside of God it is wrong, however this is often what happens. Idolatry is defined as "blind or excessive devotion to something", in Lizewski's case, a mask that allows him to do heroic deeds. God is to be our comfort, but if we take comfort in other things I still think that is perfectly fine. However, we should not place our trust and devotion in these items of solace. Our hope should not rest in people or things, it should remain with God.

'Nuff Said
-Cable

Responsibility Part 2: Spoiled

Stephanie Brown is still trying to prove everyone wrong. A college student like me and my classmates, Stephanie Brown has very little in common with us apart from that. After all, who amongst us has had to don a cape and costume to spoil the crimes of our father? Who amongst has fought at Batman's side as Robin? And I for one have never had to step into the very large boots of Batgirl (large even for me, with my overly large feet).

Despite this very impressive resumé, Stephanie is forever trying to silence the doubters. During her time as the vigilante called Spoiler, in spite of her association with Batman and Robin, the Dynamic Duo were constantly discouraging her from her chosen 'extracurricular activity'; fighting crime was a noble pursuit, but it was strictly for the professionals, not teenage girls. Even when Stephanie temporarily replaced Tim Drake as Robin she was constantly pressed by Batman to give up. Recently Stephanie became the newest Batgirl, and even then is met with obstacles in the form of the Bat-family, in this case Barbara Gordon (the original Batgirl), who still won't forgive Stephanie for mistakes she made as the Spoiler. Stephanie's role as the newest Batgirl comes only after her fairly recent 'return from the grave'...her death being faked by a doctor who also thought that she was setting a bad example by wearing a costume and fighting crime.


Yes, Stephanie Brown is a teenage girl...she is also a superhero. Can the two not go hand in hand? There has been issue taken throughout the years with the fact that Batman takes Robin as a teen sidekick, but the conflict seems to be multiplied several times when it comes to Stephanie (please make this a discussion of feminism, I dare you). At first it seems that the problem with her choice of heroism is the fact that she is a girl. A majority of the opposition to what she does comes from Tim Drake, who eventually becomes her boyfriend. Is this just another case of a boyfriend attempting to protect his girlfriend? Probably. Is that so wrong? During one of the many confrontations between the two in regards to this issue, Spoiler points out that danger is merely an occupational hazard.


As mentioned in the panels above, danger isn't something that any (sane) superhero seeks out, but it is something that is a part of what they do. In the fight between good and evil, evil doesn't wear kid gloves. Anyone standing up for what they believe in (real life or comic books) is liable to get hurt in some way. Does that mean we should back down? I think not. Stephanie Brown agrees with me. Throughout constant adversity, from her allies and enemies both, she continues to fight for what she believes in. She is coming from a slightly unusual position in that she is a girl and a teenager. However, she doesn't let this stop her, instead choosing to not let anyone look down on her because she is young, but instead setting an example for others in life and speech (as 1 Timothy 4:12 tells us to do). While I understand where Batman, Robin, and Barbara Gordon are coming from (I would probably take their side in such a situation, my natural instinct being to prevent a girl from having to fight), I think Stephanie is right. No she is not perfect, she is not Batman, but she does have talent, and it would be a crime for her to not use it. Like I pointed out in my post about Spider-Man and responsibility, the Bible tells us that to whom much is entrusted, much will be expected (Luke 12:48). Stephanie may not have the powers of a spider, or any other sort of superpowers, but there is much that she does have. She has a heart that is in the right place and a desire to do good. Sadly, not everyone is blessed with these gifts. Those that are should fulfill their responsibility and stand up for what is right. It is pathetic how few people do this, so if Stephanie Brown or anyone in my life wants to do that, I will support it. We may not be gifted with any sort of superpowers or have the money to buy expensive crime-fighting gadgets like Batman, but what we do have is a conscience. As Christians, we should use this conscience to bring about good, rather than using the excuses that Paul rebukes in 1 Timothy 4:12. Perhaps we have more in common with Stephanie Brown than it seems.

'Nuff Said!
-Cable

A Piercing Tribute

To tattoo or not to tattoo? That is the question that is being dealt with, surprisingly enough, in the midst of Uncanny X-Men 504 and 507. Amidst the search for a means of keeping mutants from becoming extinct and a fight with a mutant slave trader, Peter Rasputin, or Colossus as he is known amongst the X-Men deals with the issue of tattoos. This episode in the life of one of my favorite comic book characters would be nothing more than a blip on the radar if not for two reasons. First of all, we discussed the tattoo issue in class near the beginning of the semester, so I thought this would be a good chance to explore the issue further. Second, the reasoning behind Colossus' desire for a tattoo is the death of my favorite female character in comics: Kitty Pryde.

Now to set a few things straight, Uncanny X-Men takes place in the mainstream Marvel universe, the 'classic' continuity that has existed since the 60s or so. So in this story, Colossus is not gay, and Kitty Pryde is no longer a teenage girl under Wolverine's tutelage (both situations differing from those I have written about previously in regards to these characters. Peter and Kitty have had a close, often romantic relationship since Kitty's first introduction into the series in the early 1980s. The two dated for a while until the editors at Marvel Comics felt that their age difference was inappropriate, however more recently their romantic relationship was rekindled. Sadly, Shadowcat (Kitty), was seemingly killed in the process of saving the Earth from destruction (the only mistake Joss Whedon made in his brilliant run on Astonishing X-Men).



Peter is crushed by the loss of Kitty, and quite literally retreats within a shell, remaining in his armored form (using his mutant power of changing his skin to organic steel) rather than in his flesh and blood state. Eventually he tries to memorialize Kitty with a tattoo...



As seen above, getting a tattoo does not come out quite as planned. Any time the needle touches Peter's skin, he reverts to his steel form, causing the equipment to break. Are the writers at Marvel trying to tell us that we should not get tattoos? I think not. The Bible, on the other hand has a bit more to say against this practice. Leviticus 19:28 states “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD”. This seems a pretty explicit command, not really leaving any loopholes. I want to argue that Colossus is getting the tattoo to honor his dead love, yet this is even addressed by Leviticus. It clearly says to NOT tattoo for the dead. However, one must understand that the context of Leviticus is thousands of years ago (as is the New Testament that I follow, but let me continue...). Anyways, the pagan nations that Israel was surrounded by engaged in practices like tattooing and cutting as a means of worshiping their false gods. The ending tacked onto Leviticus 19:28 clarifies this. It is not necessarily a matter of tattoos being wrong, but instead it is the mindset behind them in the ancient world. We are supposed to have no other gods before the Lord our God, according to the Ten Commandments. The Israelites were notorious for neglecting God in favor of other idols, so the command regarding tattoos, along with many other Old Testament laws was a way of steering Israel away from any compromises and temptations. In this light, I don't think that the law in regards to tattoos is truly applicable today. That said, I think that the Bible is 'living and active' and that every part of it is useful...what I think we can take out of Leviticus 19:28 to apply to our lives today is the implications against idolatry, not the command about tattoos.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says that our bodies are to be a "temple of the Holy Spirit". So is it wrong to decorate God's temple with images of someone else, as many people do and as Colossus is attempting to do? Again, I think the mindset behind the act is what is key. If what you are tattooing becomes something you place more important than God (and tattooing something on yourself obviously places much importance on it), THEN it is without a doubt wrong. However, I don't think that any and all tattoos are a means of idolizing something.

Again, Colossus is only getting this tattoo out of his love for his presumably deceased girlfriend and teammate. The way Colossus has handled loss in other instances has been decidedly less healthy...


...at the very least, a tattoo seems like a better coping mechanism than violence, yes?

Finally, Corinthians 13 point out that whatever we do, no matter how great it is, is not worth anything if it is not done out of love. Love is the catalyst that makes good actions truly good. I think this passage can be applied to the opposite that if something that many people see as wrong is done out of love, then it is not a bad thing. I realize this could probably be misread, but look for example at discipline. A parent who hits their child is likely to be reported to CPS...however, a parent who spanks their child for doing something wrong, is coming from a place of love and a desire to teach the child. So, if a tattoo is gotten out of a non-idolatrous love, I think that that would be Biblically acceptable.

'Nuff Said...perhaps!
-Cable

Love Throws No Stones

Kurt Wagner can’t even say the word ‘gay’. As his best friend (or now it seems his ex-best friend) points out, this homophobia is highly ironic. Kurt, or Nightcrawler as he is known by many, is a mutant, an advanced species of human, Homo superior if you will (as opposed to Homo sapiens). His mutant power is that of teleportation, with a puff of smoke he can disappear, only to reappear somewhere else. In addition to this, he also is blue, furry, and looks like a demon (complete with a tail). Yet he is still human.

In spite of this strange dichotomy, Wagner is quick to judge those who are different, in this case, homosexuals. Following Nightcrawler’s introduction in Ultimate X-Men he became fast friends with the X-Man known as Colossus (Peter Rasputin). The two were constant companions in missions and life in general. However, upon realizing that Colossus is gay, Nightcrawler makes every attempt to cut Peter out of his life completely.

The writers of Ultimate X-Men bring to mind John 8:1-11 in regards to the course that Nightcrawler’s life takes after his shunning of Colossus. After a fellow X-Man is put in a coma following a fight, Nightcrawler waits day and night at her hospital bed, transforming an unrequited crush into a full-blown obsession that culminates in his kidnapping of her once she awakes from her coma. This crazy development with Nightcrawler emphasizes his own faults, recalling Christ’s words of “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone…” (speaking of the woman caught in adultery, John 8:7, ESV). Wagner is quick to judge his friend for his homosexuality, yet he is not without sin himself.

The story of the X-Men has always been about prejudices, even since its conception in the early 1960’s. The X-Men stood as an allegory then for people of different race, they were still human but were judged because of the way they were born (in this case, not with different skin color, but with powers that set them apart from the rest of humanity). Now this group of often outlaw superheroes represents any group that is different, be it diverse races, religions, or sexualities. This has been made more explicit of late by the inclusion of X-Men who are members of all these groups: there are Hindu X-Men who fight alongside Christian ones, there are African-American and Asian mutants, and there are gay heroes as well.

I see a lot of media that includes characters of different sexuality, and to me it seems to be a sell-out in order to please every demographic. However, there seems to be rhyme to the reasoning behind the ‘all-new, all-different X-Men’. In a recent issue of Uncanny X-Men, Wolverine approaches Jean-Paul Beaubier (Northstar, a mutant with the power of super-speed), about joining the X-Men. Northstar, who is openly gay, is about as wary of the proposition as I was at first.

The scene pictured above (click the picture if you are unable to read the text) addresses my skepticism about using those that are different as nothing more than a publicity stunt. While I’m sure that the inclusion of diverse characters probably does help circulation of the comic books, I do not believe that is the primary reason they are in the series. Instead, characters like Northstar simply assist the writers behind the various X-Men series in spreading their gospel of loving those who are different. Jesus points out in Matthew 5:47 that “if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” It says nothing about our character if we accept those that are the same. However, those who write about the X-Men put us in the position where we have to differentiate ourselves from the Gentiles so to speak. I find it refreshing that in spite of the bigotry I witness so often in real life (racism is disgusting for so many of the people I am around, yet they have no problem spitting out purely hateful comments about homosexuals) the comic book world encourages us in adopting a Christian approach towards loving others, regardless of their differences.

Of course the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, and the fact that it is sinful cannot be argued. Various passages refer to acts of homosexuality as ‘detestable’ and ‘an abomination’ (Leviticus 20:13 and 18:22 respectively). Clearly, we as Christians should not compromise in this matter, homosexuality is against God’s will and that is the simple fact. However, Christ commands us to love our neighbors without exception. Somebody pointed out in the discussion board this week that the definition of a neighbor that Jesus provides in the parable of the Good Samaritan centers around mercy. The lawyer that is engaging Jesus in conversation, upon being asked who was the neighbor to the injured man in the story, responds that the neighbor was the one who showed the man mercy. Jesus then tells the man to go and do likewise. The definition of mercy as I understand it is when a person does not receive what they deserve. Of course sin deserves negative consequences, but as sinners ourselves it is not our place to dole out this negativity. Instead we are to show mercy to other sinners.

A recent issue of X-Factor, ended with a kiss between two gay characters. A few issues later the letters page included a very hateful and disgusted response to this. The writer of the letter detailed how he tore up the issue of the comic and sold the rest of his collection on ebay, complaining that the inclusion of gay and lesbian characters is ruining his dreams for ‘a better comic book world’. Peter David, the writer of X-Factor wrote a response to this, saying essentially that we should respect others, regardless of their sexuality and continuing to say that his idea of a better comic book world is one where diverse characters can be explored without it having to be a big deal. To some this will always be a big deal, but I am glad that the writers who tell the tales of the X-Men can acknowledge that the world is not made up of heterosexual white males. It’s not an agenda, it’s a portrayal of the world as it is. As for me, I think we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. After all, no matter what good we may do, as 1 Corinthians 13 points out, if we don’t have love, we are nothing.

‘Nuff Said!
-Cable

The Culpability Problem

"You won't like me when I'm angry," says the nerdy looking man in the lab coat. This statement is readily acceptable by the reader, after all there are not many situations where you like a person more when they are giving into their anger, it makes sense that this man is no different. He is. When Dr. Bruce Banner becomes angry, he undergoes a fantastic transformation: from man into a monster.

The Hulk, often accompanied by the adjective 'Incredible' is probably familiar to most of you (he has been the subject of two movie, one forgettable and one pretty good, in the last several years) but for those of you who are lost, the basic premise is this: Dr. Bruce Banner for one reason or another (originally absorbing massive amounts of gamma radiation in a bombing and most recently as a result of experimentation on himself in an attempt to create a super-soldier) has had his very cells mutated by science and because of that when he loses control of himself (often as a result of his rage) he becomes the massive Hulk, capable of impressive feats of strength. However, when Banner becomes the Hulk he is no longer in the driver's seat; the Hulk is driven by his rage, destroying anything in his path, and only reverting to the mild-mannered doctor when his rage subsides.

This modern-day Jekyll and Hyde story contains several problems almost as big as the monstrous Hulk himself. While superheroes are often responsible for great deals of destruction in their pursuit of justice and saving lives, the Hulk is in a league of his own in this regard. Banner's alter-ego is capable of taking down entire buildings with a blow or crushing a tank in his bare hands. In spite of the overwhelming destruction that the Hulk is responsible for, he is usually painted as the hero because of the lives he saves. It seems to be another one of those 'greater good' cases, but one that is more easily justifiable as it is an instance of human life over property. Unfortunately, in the recent incarnation of the Hulk presented in the first volume of Ultimates, (this decade's re-telling of the classic Avengers teams)the story is very different. The Ultimates, a team of superheroes assembled by the United States government has become something of a joke; the public is crying out for the team to be dissolved after the government invests billions of dollars in them in the name of national defense despite the fact that there is no threat the country seems to need superhuman protection from. So, Bruce Banner, a scientist working as part of the team, injects himself with the serum that will turn him into the Hulk so that he can become a threat worthy of the Ultimates and therefore justify their existence. As the Hulk he kills hundreds of people.

Banner is eventually stopped by the combined might of the Ultimates, and the super-team becomes instant celebrities in the eye of the public. However, it is later revealed to the masses that the Hulk was Dr. Banner. There is a massive outcry for justice and the Hulk/Banner is put on trial.

The court scene above reminds me of many of the court proceedings that go on in our country on a regular basis. It seems that too often the pursuit of justice is too often deflected by people seeking to find loopholes in the system. The lawyer above asks if Banner is culpable for his actions because of the state he is in. Is this scenario really much different from all the instances where criminals escape a sentence by being ruled insane? Is someone responsible for their actions if they are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs? People see this as a gray issue (oddly enough, gray is the color that the Hulk takes on in many instances, though he is most often shown to be green) because of all the various minutia that comes up as supposedly significant facts. Perhaps the traditional version of the Hulk, one where his initial mutation comes as a result of saving a young man's life and where he truly has no control over himself, can be taken off the hook. However, I believe the Hulk seen in Ultimates is a commentary on what has become an issue in the justice system. Banner is eventually found guilty (obviously having committed the atrocious acts he is being tried for), but also found to be culpable (worthy of blame, something the court system sometimes seems to ignore), and as such is sentenced to execution. He is rendered unconscious, placed on an empty aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean, and seemingly killed by bombing.


This implies a belief by the writers that there should be no loopholes, guilty is guilty regardless. One must answer for crimes committed. Banner made the conscious choice to inject himself with the serum that would turn him into a mindless monster, as such he is responsible for how he acted in that condition. One might not have control of oneself under the influence of drugs, but there is always a point of control where the individual is faced with a choice. If the make the wrong choice, they are responsible for what happens. Of course if a person is really insane (as I'm sure the case is in many insanity pleas) there is a difference, but this 'temporary insanity' garbage is exactly that: garbage. Justice should not be polluted by loopholes.

The silver lining is forgiveness. It should not be escape from justice.

'Nuff Said? (I feel as though I may have been more harsh that I intended in this case. I believe we should love our enemies and pray for those who hurt us. My only issue is that I dislike seeing the justice system perverted. However, as in all things I think a desire for justice should be paired with a mindset of love.)
-Cable