Religion at Work + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around.

Public Square Bulletin recommends:

Religious diversity: Corporate obstacle? Or asset?

Kathryn Post – Religion News Services

Businesses have traditionally tried to keep religion out of the workplace. But as businesses try to recruit exceptional candidates, they’re finding that being open about religious diversity is a positive.

Just Say No: The Four-Letter Word Religion Writers Really Want To Avoid

Bobby Ross Jr. – Religion Unplugged

More coverage of the AP Style Guide’s emphasis to avoid the word cult, and what its impact on religion reporters will be.

‘Uncharted’ is a surprisingly Catholic video game. Why does the movie adaption strip out the faith?

Kevin Christopher Robles – America Magazine

The popular video game series “Uncharted” has a prominent religious through-line. But when the video game was adapted to the big screen, its religious elements went missing. Robles looks at what was lost.

Primary general presidency: Preparing our children for a lifetime of covenant keeping

Primary General Presidency – Church News

The Primary General Presidency announced that one counselor in ward primary presidencies will be responsible for helping prepare children for baptism, the other to prepare children for the temple.

I’m a feminist Mormon. Almost everything you’ve heard about my culture is wrong

Rachel Rueckert – The Independent

The cultural depictions of Latter-day Saints and our world are often limited and frankly inaccurate, and too often we feel obliged to laugh along to be in on the joke. While Rueckert poses some odd ideas (atheist Mormons?), she does a good job of celebrating the diversity of Latter-day Saints.

 

 

On Key

You Might Also Like

Should the Church Pay Taxes?

Yesterday Paul Mero, a man I long admired, wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune titled, “LDS Church should surrender its tax-exempt status.” Since I’ve been on the record previously calling the argument that Churches should be taxed “a terrible argument.” I thought I should probably try and keep the conversation going with Mero. In his article Mero makes a few points: The Church can continue its mission with less financial means Members of the Church will continue to donate because of their faithfulness even if it is not tax deductible Tax exemptions don’t protect the religious from government interference The Church’s tax exemption gives church critics a platform to criticize the Church on. Mero clearly means well. He believes that the negative effects would be minor. But I believe where his argument falls flat is in the benefit it would provide the Church. The only benefit Mero can suggest is that, currently, some critics argue that the Church should pay taxes. Sure the Church would certainly be able to survive while taxed, but those funds would be taken away from accomplishing the Church’s mission. And the only accomplishment would be to take one issue away from critics. But this criticism is not virtuous. It is almost always a thinly veiled attempt at religious discrimination, arguing that religious nonprofits should be treated uniquely worse than all other nonprofits. (Religious nonprofits currently have some benefits others do not. But arguments to tax churches don’t seek to remove those minor additional benefits, but to take from them a major benefit that all other nonprofits have.) And this is very unlikely to reduce total criticism of the Church. No one who criticizes the Church for its tax status is likely to join if they start paying taxes. And there will always be some new issue to criticize whether real or invented that will immediately fill the gap. Criticism won’t go down, it will just move on to a different issue.

A reflection on violence in film

Gladiator II is a serviceable historical epic. If you loved Gladiator, you’ll like Gladiator II. Gladiator II opens as Rome is about to siege the “last free city in Africa.” Our nameless hero loses valiantly with his wife dying in the battle, and he is brought to be a slave in Rome. But if our hero can perform well enough as a gladiator, he can buy his own freedom. And with that, we’re off. The beats of this film will be familiar, with a massive twist only halfway through that changes the stakes for everyone. Our hero is really the son of our hero from the last movie! Which means he has a legitimate claim to the throne of Rome. The movie tries to follow three different stories. Our hero (Paul Mescal) is trying to win his freedom and avenge his wife’s death. Acacius (Pedro Pascal), the general of the armies, wants respite and time with his wife; he also wants to lead a coup against the emperors. Macrinus (Denzel Washington) wants to work his way up in Roman power through political scheming. And then on top of all of that, we are told that our hero must deal with his father’s legacy and discover who he truly is.  It’s a lot, even for an epic, and the screenplay is not nearly tight enough to keep all the storylines coherent and moving. We are led to believe that Macrinus is successful in maneuvering to the top of Roman society because of his exceptional political skill, and Denzel Washington’s delicious performance makes that believable, but all we actually see him do is win a bet and carry out an assassination. Pedro Pascal’s excellent work as the weary general does some of the work in helping reconcile the contradictions in his character, but a look on his face here or there has to carry a lot that a simple conversation could have fleshed out.  Perhaps the reason the script doesn’t have time to breathe is also its biggest contradiction. There is something grotesque about watching audiences cheer on the brutal violence taking place in the film. And yet, the entire film is centered on having us, the audience, watch one set piece of over-the-top violence after another. We don’t get to see Macrinus manipulate the Roman senate because, instead, we need to see our hero fighting with CGI rhinos or CGI sharks. There is a place for violence in a moral movie. It can be helpful to attune our senses to recoil from violence or recognize the rare places it is justified. But the violence on display in Gladiator II is so relentless and gratuitous that it dulls the senses instead.  This is not to diminish the craftsmanship that has been used to bring this world and its many battle scenes to light. Rome feels broad and alive in true epic fashion, and it’s easy to get swept away into its world—with the exception of a few uncharacteristic pieces of clunky CGI work. The opening battle sequence is perhaps the best ever put to screen.  The best part of Gladiator II was its opening. A 1950s style opening credits are shown over a lavish dreamy animated retelling of the first film. Everything about it screams that something epic is about to be shown. But throughout the movie I stayed fixated on what it could have been. What if it had been more focused on the characters I cared about? What if it didn’t try to connect so much plot to the previous film and let this story stand on its own merits? What if they had expanded it to a TV miniseries so that its many plot points had space to breathe? In the end, despite some good acting and a beautiful setting, the movie just left so much to be wanted.  Gladiator II is R-rated. It is not appropriate for children or, in my estimation, most adults. At its core, this film has a moral message: life is hard, but it’s worth fighting for. But the way it’s presented on screen does more to drag down the spirit than to lift it up. Two and a half out of five stars. Gladiator II opens nationwide November 22, 2024.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This