Mel Gibson s The Passion and Christian Beliefs about the Crucifixion: Two COMPAS/National Post Opinion Surveys

Transcription

1 Mel Gibson s The Passion and Christian Beliefs about the Crucifixion: COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research March 7, 2004

2 Background and Summary Two Polls Intercept Study among Movie-Goers and National Survey on Deicide This document reports on findings from two surveys. Part I focuses on the Mel Gibson movie. It presents findings from a n=470 intercept survey among movie-goers after they left a screening of Mel Gibson s Passion of the Christ at three cinemas across the Greater Toronto Area, conducted the first weekend of screening (Feb-27-28, 2004). It also presents findings from a n=500 national survey on the topic, conducted March 3-5, Using data from the same national survey, Part II focuses on beliefs about Jewish responsibility for the deicide. Christian Anticipation and the Film s Actual Impact on Religious Commitment The release of the film comes at a time of a heightened desire for spiritual messaging among many devout Christians. Such a desire may be stimulated by concern about threats to traditional values such as gay marriage rights and the emergence of missionary Islam. The findings from the intercept study among movie-goers confirm that Christian enthusiasts of the film were right to anticipate that the film would intensify a Christian consciousness. Large numbers of Christian movie-goers said that they became more favourable to their religion as a result of seeing the film. The small numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Taoists attending the film also reported feeling more pro-christian as a result of seeing the film. Christian enthusiasts for the film may nonetheless have over-estimated the positive impact of the film. Experience of the film intensified Christian feelings among the already intensely Christian far more than among the semi- or undevout. Among the general public, the film aroused intense interest as well. A quarter of the public told COMPAS interviewers that choosing this film would be a high 1 Each survey can be considered accurate to within approximately 4.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20. 2

3 priority if they went to the movies. 2 Priorizing this film was especially high among the devout 34% among English-speaking Christians who attend church at least 50 times a year vs. 24% among those who never or almost never attend. A very sizeable minority of the public was turned off by what they heard about the film. The proportion who would studiously avoid the film (36%) is higher than the proportion who would definitely see it (24%). Among those who attend church at least 50 times a year, 34% said that they would definitely not see this film. This rises to 48% among those who never or almost never attend church. Jewish Trepidation and the Actual Impact of Christian Belief on Attitudes to Jews and Israel Some Jewish leaders were concerned that the Gibson film s pre-vatican II emphasis on Jewish responsibility for the deicide would arouse ill-will. Shared Christian-Jewish belief that the historical assignment of Jewish responsibility for the deicide often contributed to an undesirable social environment in the past has led to modern theological modifications exemplified by Vatican II. In practice, the intercept study shows that the Gibson film s message is perceived by movie-goers as substantially blaming Jews. Among Canadians as a whole (not those attending the film), about one in ten feel that Judaism or Jews today should continue to be blamed for the Cruxifixion. Just under two-thirds explicitly exempt contemporary Jews from any responsibility higher among English-speaking Protestants, lower among French-speaking Catholics. Part I The Movie Christian enthusiasts for the film were right that viewing the film would intensify viewers Christian consciousness but they may have under-estimated opposition to the film among Christians adamant against seeing the film. A third of those attending the film reported feeling more favourable to Christianity as a result of seeing the film, as shown in table 1. This figure rises to 2 Respondents were asked: Suppose you were thinking of seeing a movie this weekend, how much would you want to see this film? Please use a 5 point scale where 5 means definitely would see it and 1, definitely not. 3

4 46% among the ultra-devout, those who report that it is very rather than somewhat, not really, or not at all important to follow the Bible. 3 Table 1: Intensified Christian Feelings among Film Attendees (Q6) How have your feelings about Christianity changed as a result of seeing the film? (Forced choice) % More favourable 33 No change/ Neutral 63 Less favourable 2 No response 2 Don t know/ Refused 0 Those who attended the film are not fully reflective of the public as a whole in part because a sizeable share of the public is adamantly against the film. The general public survey asked respondents how likely they would attend the movie: Suppose you were thinking of seeing a movie this weekend, how much would you want to see this film? Please use a 5 point scale where 5 means definitely would see it and 1, definitely not. Responses were highly polarized with 36% scoring 1 (definitely not see it) and 24% scoring 5 (definitely see it). 4 One reason for avoiding the film is probably its perceived violence and cruelty. Attendees were asked to volunteer in their own words what they liked best and what they liked least about the film. The most common answers were the religious, spiritual or Christian aspect of the film as its virtue and the gore, cruelty, and violence as its weakness. 5 As a young film-goer put it, Mel went over the top this time. According to a member of a conservative Protestant 3 Respondents exiting the movie theatre were asked: How important is it to follow the Bible? The responses to the forced-choice question were 57% very, 25% somewhat, 5% not really, 9% not at all, and 3% DNK/refused/no answers. 4 The other scores were 10% (2), 17% (3), 9% (4), and 3% (DNK). 5 The most frequently volunteered most-liked aspects of the film were its religious significance (48%), story (22%), and cinematography (16%). The most frequently volunteered liked-least aspects of the film were its violence, cruelty, or gore (42%) and its interpretation (16%), consisting mainly of the film s perceived lack of hope and lack of treatment of the resurrection, followed to a lesser extent by its emphasis on Jewish responsibility and demons. 4

5 denomination, the film delivered poor content almost entirely suffering with no message. According to attendees, the image of the Crucifixion in the film is that Jesus died mainly for humankind s sins, as shown in table 2. Asked specifically how the Crucifixion was treated, 79% say that the film emphasized Jesus dying for our sins with 20% saying that the Crucifixion-related message of the film was Jewish responsibility either because ancient Jews were responsible for the deicide or because the Jewish religion permitted this to happen. Another 5% said that the film s message was about Roman responsibility. By a factor of 4:1, attendees perceive the film as laying more blame on Jews or Judaism than on the Roman rulers of the time 20% blaming Jews or Judaism vs. 5% blaming the Romans. A follow-up question asked about the portrayal of ancient Jews in the film. In response to a forced choice question, a small majority (54%) say that the film presented Jews as powerless or as wanting to preserve their religion while a large minority (39%) say that the film highlighted the responsibility for the Crucifixion among the Jews of the time, as shown in table 3. Table 2: Partially Pre-Vatican II Image of Crucifixion Portrayed in the Film as Reported by Attendees Leaving the Film (Q4) Which of the following viewpoints on the Crucifixion came out most strongly from the film? (Some multiple responses) % Jesus died for our sins 79 Ancient Jews were responsible 10 The Jewish religion permitted this to happen 10 Ancient Romans were responsible 5 No response 3 Don t know/ Refused * 5

6 Table 3: Partially Pre-Vatican II Image of Ancient Jews in the Film as Reported by Attendees Leaving the Film (Q5) Which of the following viewpoints about Jews came out most strongly from the film? % Jews wanted to preserve their religion 39 Jews forced the Romans to kill Jesus 39 Jews lived without rights under Roman rule 15 No response 11 Don t know/ Refused 2 Given that a sizeable minority perceived the film as highlighting Jewish responsibility, one might expect film attendees to report that their attitudes towards ancient Jews had become less favourable.. Indeed, more than one in ten reported feeling less favourable, as shown in table 4. The proportions reporting less favourable attitudes ranged from a high of 30% among the small numbers of Muslims attending (n=10) to 20% among Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists (n=20), and 0% among Jews attending (n=9). 6 The film s arousal of anti-jewish feeling was reflected in some of the spontaneous thoughts expressed by respondents. For example, a young male Muslim volunteered that he went to the film because Jews don t like it. A Roman Catholic male in his 60 s declared: I hate the Jews but I never did before. I never hated Jews before I saw this movie but I hate them now. A male in his 30 s volunteered that I didn t trust the ancient Jews and I don t trust the modern Jews either. Some respondents made a point of explaining how they could dislike ancient Jews without having ill-will towards contemporary members of that faith. One young film-goer said that his diminished esteem was restricted to the group portrayed (in the film). A very religious Roman Catholic said that you can t go back a thousand years and blame the Jews today. Another said that he had seen Schindler s List and did not believe that Christians would want to behave that way a second time. 6 Among Christians, there was no statistical relationship between their degree of devotion or religiosity, as measured by how important the Bible is to them, and whether their feelings towards Jews became less favourable. 6

7 A self-described Latin American immigrant to Canada spoke of responsibility for the deicide in these words: It could be anyone today if it happened again. If Jesus were alive today, someone else would turn him in. We had the Holocaust so we should be careful about how we discuss sensitive questions. A young woman said that the film played up this [Jewish responsibility] too much. Another expressed sadness for what the ancient Jews missed (in not embracing Jesus). Still another said we all make mistakes. Some respondents insisted that Gibson s film had falsified history. As one young Catholic male put it, I m no historian but the movie doesn t seem real. Another said: My opinion [of Jews] didn t change, but I learned what Mel Gibson thought about ancient Jews. He didn t reach the real history of ancient Jews. Table 4: Film-Induced Changes in Attitudes to Ancient Jews (Q8) And your feelings about ancient Jews? How have they changed? % More favourable 2 No change/ Neutral 84 Less favourable 12 No response 2 Don t know/ Refused * Part II Beliefs about the Crucifixion The general public survey asked Canadians to assess how much if any responsibility should be assigned to Jews for the Crucifixion. As shown in table 5, 64% assign no blame to contemporary Jews, including 27% who assign no blame to ancient Jews either. Most of the remainder (26%) have not yet decided how much responsibility to allocate while 6% hold the Jewish religion responsible and 4% hold modern Jews at least partly to blame. The small sample of Muslims is least apt to hold Jews blameless (30%). A bare majority (53%) of French-speaking Catholics holds Jews blameless. This rises to 66% among English-speaking Catholics and 71% among Englishspeaking Protestants. 7

8 Table 5: Assigning Responsibility for Killing Jesus (%) (Q5) [IF DID NOT SEE THE FILM] There s been talk about the ancient Jews and the killing of Christ. Which of the following four viewpoints is closest to your own? [RANDOMIZE] Fr rc eng rc eng prot MUSLIM ALL CDA. The ancient Jews were not responsible The ancient Jews were responsible and modern Jews should not be held responsible in any way TOTAL NOT BLAMING CONTEMPORARY JEWS [53] [67] [71] [30] [64] The ancient Jews were responsible and the Jewish religion must share some responsibility The ancient Jews were responsible and modern Jews should be held at least partly to blame Don t Know/ Refused While attitudes towards responsibility for the Crucifixion vary denominationally, they do not vary according to degree of religious devotion except possibly among Protestants. Among French-speaking and among English-speaking Catholics, there is no predictable variation in attitudes towards Jewish responsibility according to degree of church attendance. The apparent lack of variation in attitudes about Jewish responsibility suggests that current attitudes on the subject among Catholics of both language groups reflect historical theological positions that have permeated the mass culture rather than the active influence of clergy today. Among Protestants, there appears to be a higher tendency for the most devout, those attending at least 50 times a year, to hold contemporary Jews blameless. Devout Protestants are more apt to believe either that ancient Jews were not responsible or that modern Jews are not responsible even if ancient Jews were. Among the small sample (n=25) of frequent church-going Protestants, 86% definitely hold contemporary Jews blameless. Given these findings, which are tentative in light of small sample sizes, it is possible that the 8

9 Protestant churches may be playing a leadership role among their flocks in encouraging Christians not to hold contemporary Jews responsible for the deicide. 7 The overall sample of n=500 is ample to describe with confidence the attitudes of Canadians as a whole and up to a point sufficient for describing the attitudes of large sub-groups such as Catholics and Protestants. The sample is not large enough to describe with confidence small sub-groups such as highly educated Protestants and especially highly educated Protestants who attend church often. These small sub-samples nonetheless suggest that the groups least likely to hold contemporary Jews responsible for the deicide are high church-attending Protestants and especially Protestants with one or more university degrees. Attitudes about responsibility for the Crucifixion tend to parallel attitudes towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is perhaps not surprising since the Christian Zionist movement, which pre-dated the modern Jewish Zionist movement, had its roots in American Protestantism. In the general public survey, respondents were asked to indicate on a 5 point scale whether Israel or the Arab countries were more right in their conflict. French-speaking Roman Catholics, who are the least apt to absolve Jews of responsibility for the deicide are least apt to take the Israeli side. Frenchspeaking Roman Catholics favour the Arab side more than 2:1 33% scoring 4-5 on the 5 point scale vs. 13% scoring 1-2 (the pro-israeli side). English-speaking Roman Catholics, who are midway between Francophone Catholics and Anglophone Protestants in assigning responsibility for the deicide, are also midway on the Arab-Israeli conflict 23% pro-israeli and 23%-pro-Arab. English-speaking Protestants, who are the most inclined to absolve Jews of deicide responsibility, are also the most pro-israeli 33% pro-israeli vs. 18% pro- Arab. Methodology As detailed above, two approximately n=500 surveys were conducted in late February and early March, one among cinema goers as they left the screening of 7 This is probably more true of conservative than liberal Protestant denominations insofar as members of the former are heavier church attenders. For example, 8% of members of the Anglican and United Church congregations in the survey report attending church at least 50 times a year compared to 23% of the others. 9

10 the Mel Gibson film in the Greater Toronto area and the other a representative sample of Canadians. Each are deemed accurate to within 4.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20. The principal investigator was Conrad Winn ( ). 10