If all films serve as manifestations of current culture through cinema, what should we learn from the fake blood and Aramaic dialogue of “The Passion of the Christ”? The film is an emblematic product of 2004 America, whether you feel that means thoughtful resurrection of the Gospels or sensational propaganda that dumbs down the real issues at stake.

In my case, I feel sorry for people who cried watching the movie, not realizing Mel Gibson was exploiting their reverence for a religious figure into a gratuitous box-office hit. I have similar feelings for people who voted for Bush because they thought he was the “moral” candidate. But wait, hopefully now Mr. Gibson, whose movie made $369 million, will leave Hollywood, give up his earthly possessions and become a missionary. Yes, and hopefully President Bush will help the homeless or serve next to the teenagers fighting in the wars he launches.

So how did a two-hour movie of drawn-out whippings, stabbings and brutality come to be considered so moving? Maybe it’s because the American public can really relate to the horror of torture (it’s irrelevant why they re-elected the president who openly promotes it as treatment for evil non-Christians). Heck, when people were nailed to crosses during Equatorial Guinea’s genocide, we sure demonstrated our intolerance for that type of behavior by supporting their newest dictator and making EQ the third-largest oil exporter in sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that this allows us to keep driving to the movies in our SUVs with our Jesus fish on the back is only an added bonus.

You know, if only there weren’t so many Jesus-haters, who don’t like “The Passion” and who are jealous of our freedom … oh wait, I’m mixing up lines.