April 2004 (v6 i5)
Shirking responsibility since 1997
 Jump to Issue  

Buy Merchandise

AIM Buddy Icons

Desktop Backgrounds


‘The Passion’ is anti-Satanic
by Kim Johnson, Guest Columnist

I’m not going to take it anymore: Mel Gibson’s new movie The Passion of the Christ must be stopped. Mr. Gibson has used his sway in Hollywood to discredit my religion and marginalize my people’s millennia-long struggle. The Passion of the Christ is biased, offensive, and — most importantly — entirely anti-Satanic.

Satan-worshippers like myself are frequently ostracized in our everyday lives. I have been an avid Satan-worshipper for the past 15 years, and believe me, I’ve had a hard enough time dealing with people who can’t tolerate my beliefs. When I wander the streets after an unholy mescaline communion — naked, sweaty and speaking in tongues — I’m harassed by the police and treated like a leper. Some restaurants won’t let me inside! My neighbors have even had me arrested after my failed attempt to ritualistically slaughter their golden retriever puppy. Such intolerance!

This movie’s anti-Satanic content is only going to further fuel the fire of hatred that my people have lived with for so long.

In the film, Gibson tries to blame my Dark Lord for Christ’s death, which is evident through the clichéd juxtaposition between Jesus and Satan. Per usual, Jesus is portrayed as a charismatic, merciful and forgiving messiah while Satan is seen as a malevolent, creepy hermaphrodite with an occasional maggot emerging from his nostrils.

I don’t get it. Where do these stereotypes come from? What am I supposed to tell the ghoulish souls that haunt my waking nightmares? How do I explain this to the kids I counsel at summer camp? Is there no safe place in this world for a regular ol’ Satan worshipper like myself?

I know that a lot of you think that my people run Hollywood — another offensive and completely unfounded anti-Satanic stereotype — but consider the facts: Courtney Love has gone back to music, Pauly Shore has been relegated to the left-hand corner of Hollywood Squares, and Steven Segal has turned Buddhist. This lack of positive Satanic influence has left the playing field wide open for such anti-Satanic ideology to run rampant in the movies.

Pretty soon we’ll start seeing good defeating evil, characters learning valuable life lessons at the conclusion, and the cute little collie with the celebrity voice not getting impaled by an asp-tongued demon. Where’s the cinematic balance in that?

Speaking of balance, the marketing and advertisement for this film is also rife with anti-Satanism. In the months prior to the movie’s release, Gibson screened the film for several hundred non-Satanic churches, oftentimes personally attending the screenings to answer questions after the event. Our Satanic Lair was not considered prestigious enough to counsel Gibson despite almost a dozen impassioned pleas to his agent, secretary, and hairdresser. It seems as though Gibson does not appreciate the value of a demonic memo scrawled hastily in pig’s blood beneath an ebony altar of the damned. And yes, we “money-grubbing” Satanists do indeed possess such pricey shrines — we’re quite adept at finding the best deal.

Mr. Gibson, if you are blaming Satanists like myself for killing Jesus, then why don’t you just come out and say it? You claim that your film is about love and tolerance — so is my religion. I’d like to quote something from Dahmer Chapter 6, Verse 66: “Smite a newborn babe with ash, fire and brimstone. Then upon their rotting carcasses, brand a pentagram.” Mr. Gibson, if that isn’t the definition of tolerance then I don’t know what is.

The fact remains that Mel Gibson has made an anti-Satanic film. For such blasphemy, he should suffer eternal punishment and not go to hell.
« Back to the April 2004 issue
©1997-2006 Texas Travesty | Copyright & Legalese | Issue Credits | Texas Travesty Archives Home