Mother Theresa, when beatified, encountered resistance primarily in the form of the Christopher Hitchens, who was fulfilling a role similar to the old Devil’s Advocate position. He argued against her deserving recognition as a saint for any number of reasons, including the fact that she seemed to be less interested in helping people than she was in promoting the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, she was given recognition as a beatus; a second miracle must be in evidence for Mother Theresa to be recognized as a saint.

Now, Pope John Paul II seems to be facing even more substantial opposition than did Mother Theresa on his path to recognition as a saint. A miracle which had been attributed to Pope John Paul II after his death is now under investigation, as it may not actually have been a miracle. If it was not a miracle, then Pope John Paul II would not have the necessary evidence of having been a saint for his beatification, the last formal step before canonization, to be verified.

The miracle attributed to Pope John Paul II occurred in the case of a French nun, suffering from Parkinson’s. She prayed for help from John Paul, and one day she woke up with the disease seemingly cured. This miracle is under doubt, however, as the woman might never have had Parkinson’s at all. Doctors who study Parkinson’s have come forward to say that there have been many cases in which patients are diagnosed with Parkinson’s, only to have that diagnosis reversed during autopsy.

But even beyond this, Pope John Paul II’s status as a saint is endangered by his policies and actions during the sex controversies throughout his reign as pontiff. John Paul’s response to claims that Bernard Law, archbishop of Boston, had committed acts of sexual abuse, was to put Law in charge of St. Mary Major’s, which is considered one of Rome’s most prestigious and honored basilicas. This was seen as less of a punishment, and more of a promotion, by many who were enraged at Law’s actions. Even beyond this, certain other evidence has come to light that casts John Paul’s status as a saint into doubt, as he claimed as models figures who were also proven to have committed acts of sexual abuse.

Canonization does not transform an individual into saint; it is merely a recognition that the individual was a saint during his or her life, and continues to be a saint past death. This is why John Paul’s actions and beliefs during his life are problematic; if he truly made such controversial decisions, and held such controversial beliefs, could he truly have been a saint during his life? Only time will tell if John Paul’s canonization carries through.

There has been ample resistance to the Church in the past, from any number of gay or equal rights groups, and even from some Jewish groups and some Christian groups. After all, the Church does say that all non-Christian religions are going to hell, right alongside all non-Protestant Christian churches, and all Protestant churches that do not oppose homosexuality with as much fervor as is evidenced by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Opposition to the Church will take a new form soon, however, thanks to the efforts of one Kevin Smith. Smith, a well-known director and writer responsible for such movies as Clerks, Mallrats, and Dogma, penned a script in 2007 for a film called Red State, which was supposed to be a horror movie inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church and its offensive practices. Just recently, the film was given the green light.

Smith has admitted that the movie about the Church is not a traditional kind of horror movie, with a monster or a killer stalking victims and murdering. Instead, the horror he is intending to invoke is of a much more creeping, seeping kind. It is the horror of seeing a madman in a position of power, and seeing him turn minds to his cause. Even beyond that, it is the horror of seeing that the culture in which we live supports the kind of monstrosity that the Church embodies.

Red State’s style of horror seems particularly suited to attacking the nightmare that is the Westboro Baptist Church, and if nothing else, making its existence more evident to the public. The Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the right to free speech, but this does not mean that it should be allowed to send its voice into America without any opposition. Red State will hopefully present to the American public the horror of the Church and it’s practices, and will increase overall awareness of the Church’s despicable actions. With any luck, after Red State has arrived in theatres, the Westboro Baptist Church will find itself opposed by a unified front of disgusted activists, capable of presenting the kind of countermovement that is so often necessary in removing a corruptive influence like the Church. Those of other Christian churches will likely find themselves as offended as Jewish people, as Muslims, as atheists, as any who see the movie and realize that manipulative, hateful darkness like that of the Church does exist, and needs to be combated.

These so-called Jesus rifles have biblical verses inscribed into them, such as “JN8:12,” clearly referencing the book of John, chapter 8, verse 12. The references crop up near the model number on the rifle, so that at first glance, they may appear to be simply part of the set of numbers regularly inscribed into military equipment. These Jesus rifles were supposed to all have been changed and corrected, but even though more than two months have past, there are still at least two thirds of the rifles spread out amongst the military. The inscriptions are on the Trijicon scopes of the Jesus rifles, and “Trijicon has sold an estimated 250,000 rifle scopes to the US armed services,” according to abcnews.go.com.

The primary problem of having these Jesus rifles in the hands of American soldiers comes from “General Order Number One,” which is a prohibition on the military supporting any particular “faith, religion, or practice”; the Jesus rifles clearly violate the order, whether or not anyone actually intended to do so. This order was intended to help prevent any further implication that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were religiously motivated, especially after President George W. Bush’s referral to the war as a crusade.

These Jesus rifles are still in use by soldiers in lands where such religious insensitivity could easily instigate violence and conflict. It is also all the more problematic when rifles are being used for the training of citizens of the war-torn nations, meaning that individuals who likely do not believe in Jesus Christ’s divinity are being trained on these Jesus rifles, leading to all kinds of discomfort on both sides of the relationship. Apparently, some villages have even gone so far as to ask incoming American soldiers specifically whether or not they are caring Jesus rifles. This very much prevents the soldiers from being able to ascertain whether the village is friendly or dangerous, as even a friendly village might turn dangerous if the soldiers are carrying the Jesus rifles.

In essence, the Jesus rifles are a terrible mistake because they bring religion into a matter where it is tremendously dangerous. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are already terribly complicated, even just by the native religions, without complicating the situation even further by weapons that are associated with Jesus Christ. While the military seems to be taking its sweet time in fixing the rifles, the soldiers there are very much endangered by the presence of the Jesus rifles. Steps need to be taken in order to fix the Jesus rifles, and ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. The fallout from any future incident could be catastrophic.

This group of armed and angry supposed followers of Christ formed a plan to kill the Michigan police officer, and then to attack the officers who would attend the murdered officer’s funeral. The group, known as the Hutaree, apparently perceives law enforcement of all kinds as its opposition. Their beliefs are summed up in a quote taken from their website: “As Christians we all are a part of the Souls of the Body of Christ, the one true church of Christ. Not any specific man made building or any man controlled organization. This is the belief of the Hutaree soldier, as should the belief of all followers in Christ be.” What Christ would actually have to say about this group is unknown, of course, but one can imagine the extent to which Christ would claim that this group is as far from Christianity as it is possible to be. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any element of Christianity endorsing a group that, as the director of research for the Southern Poverty Law Center says, seeks to incite an apocalypse.

Christianity can ill afford to be characterized by groups of these types, not in a country where every day the number of atheists is growing. These groups are utterly abnormal, and are closer to terrorist organizations than they are to the anything else. But the fact that such groups exist and claim to be a part of Christianity is a further blow to the credibility of the religion. Obviously, one could dismiss this group as simply a crazed group of extremists, not really indicative of any aspect of Christianity, as evidence by the fact that they so clearly do not follow Christ’s most basic teaching. But the fact that there are outspoken elements of Christianity which incite crowds to a fury not unlike that preached by the Hutaree would lead one to believe that Christianity itself is not helping to prevent groups like this from arising.

This Christian militia group is clearly wrong, from any perspective, not least of all the perspective of Christianity today, or of Christ. But it is up to the members of Christianity to attempt to make clear how wrong groups like this are, and to assist in the prevention of their creation.

Indeed, holding faith, Christian or otherwise, is likely harder in today’s world than it has ever been before. Every day, Christians are confronted with facts and viewpoints that would seem to challenge their own, and Christians must do one of three things in the face of these conflicting opinions: they must learn to stand strong yet calmly silent; they must attempt to fight back with their opinions; or they must lose that faith which makes them Christian. A terrible choice, it seems, for Christians for whom their Christianity is a fundamental part of life.

So far, as could only be expected, most Christians have responded with that anger, that fear, and that confrontational attitude under which they seek to attack their opponent. Take the offensive, and one will never have to suffer the slings and arrows of a more calm, defensive position; or at least, so goes the underlying theory of many prominent Christian advocates. But this type of attitude often causes significantly more harm than it does good. After all, attacking someone else’s beliefs, accusing them of holding false ideals and opinions, will never convince them to change. A person, Christian or otherwise, will simply get tremendously defensive, and will become reluctant to listen to what is actually being said. Attacks are not the answer, especially because a Christian response that involves irrational demagoguery, designed to simply strike back at opponents, paints a picture of the Christian population which is entirely negative. In this modern world, where faith becomes a rarer and rarer quality, Christians cannot afford to alienate those with the potential to have faith by presenting such an incisive, angry front to the world.

Perhaps no modern day American commentator better represents the effect of this incisive rhetoric than Glenn Beck. Beck is perhaps better known for his conservative, Republican-centric rants than for any directly dealing with Christianity, but Beck is still a prominent Christian voice in America. For all that he is not necessarily directly a commentator on issues of religion, he does bring his Christian ideals into many of his arguments, ensuring that any viewer or listener will know that he is a Christian, and that he believes Christian morals are the key to helping America and her citizens. In and of themselves, these things are not necessarily bad; though it is fairly impossible to prove that the founding fathers of America truly attached Christian mores to America’s base, it is fair to say that the morals they did endorse were fairly similar to those of the modern, selective version of Christianity that exists today. Christian ideals include such basic and worthy elements as “Love your neighbor as you would yourself,” and “Turn the other cheek.” Though, as previously mentioned, these come only from a selective reading of the Bible that leaves out several of the books more controversial elements the key point remains that the Christian ideals generally endorsed by modern day Christians are often acceptable and worthwhile.

But when these ideals are taken to an extreme by one such as Beck…when they are presented with, not reasoned dialogue and calmness, but impassioned speeches that skirt the borders of insanity…when they are not truly examined, but are simply regurgitated upon command to prove any possible point that Beck can imagine…that is when Christians and their beliefs on the whole are cheapened and reduced. How can a reasonable, modern-day individual find his or her way to belief, when one such as Beck makes it look so unappealing with his nigh-incoherent rants, which all too often claim Christian elements as major pillars of support? Indeed, in his attempts to endorse Christian beliefs, to show that they are integral to the country and to American happiness and well-being, Beck generally instead proves only that these same Christian beliefs can be used for pompous, bombastic speeches without any real content.

The problem extends beyond Beck, though he is a very prominent figure in the overall issue. Another such problematic figure is Kirk Cameron, a former actor and current evangelist, who in particular speaks out against evolution. Cameron as well paints an uncompromising, irrational, attack-dog version of Christians that is so unappealing to others in the world, it is no wonder that Christians often have a bad image. Cameron’s arguments against evolution are often thoroughly debunked by scientists who present all the evidence necessary to do so, but either these scientific rationales for evolution’s existence are ignored or misunderstood, almost on purpose, by Christian spokespeople such as Cameron. Cameron, for instance, has often cited the nonexistence of the “crocoduck” as evidence against evolution, without ever truly responding to the arguments of scientists who have clearly shown that evolution does not require the existence of a croc duck to be proven (for more information, see Richard Dawkins’s excellent book, The Greatest Show On Earth). Cameron’s attempts to uphold evangelical Christian beliefs through unsubstantiated arguments and logical fallacies only add to the negative picture of Christians that has grown more and more over time.

So what can Christians do to help eliminate this negative picture, without losing their own faith? The answer lies in an offshoot of the three options earlier discussed as responses for when Christians are confronted about their beliefs. Instead of responding aggressively, or instead of simply losing faith, Christians can choose to stoically, quietly, and pleasantly listen to the arguments against their beliefs, and then state that they still retain their faith. Indeed, faith by its very nature is irrational; this is an oft-accepted point, and Christians can still use it to point out the source of their beliefs. But the fact that Christian faith is based upon a trust that needs no rational basis does not mean that Christians should then apply irrationality to all aspects of their life, or to their discussions with others. Christians can exhibit a willingness to listen, and then to speak calmly and rationally in their discourse with non-believers or doubters, and will therefore present themselves as perfectly reasonable individuals with their own set of beliefs. Gone will be the image presented by so many of Christians as crazed ranting madmen, who are more interested in the sounds of their own voices than they are in listening to their opponents’ words.

As an example, there is a particular part of the aforementioned Dawkins book, The Greatest Show On Earth, in which Dawkins attests to working with prominent Christians (high-ranking members of the Catholic Church) to promote evolution. These Christians still believe in God, and Jesus, and all of the other many elements of the Christian faith; but they also are willing to admit, based on the rationally presented evidence of countless scientists, that evolution has been proven to exist. They may still believe that God has a hand in evolution, or that God is responsible for having created evolution to begin with, thereby allowing for coherency with Christian values. But the fact that they are reasonably capable of listening to and discoursing with such a noted non-believer as Dawkins is a credit to them and to Christians everywhere. It doesn’t matter if they convince Dawkins that God exists, or if Dawkins convinces them that God does not exist; the mere fact that they are Christians, able to stand strong enough in their beliefs that they can afford to have those beliefs challenged, is tremendously impressive and praiseworthy.

The faith held by Christians of the world need not be forgotten, or compromised, for Christians to present themselves as calm, rational, listening interlocutors in discussions. Doing so can only raise the Christian image on the whole, as well; imagine how much more impressive it is to see someone who can calmly listen and discuss facts with an ideological opponent without losing his or her own beliefs, than it is to see someone go onto a TV show, uncontested, and simply angrily rant at a camera without ever need to have his or her own beliefs challenged. Christians on the whole are not best represented by these irrational, mouth-frothing types, who cannot have a reasonable discussion with those who disagree, and it is about time for the Christians of America in particular to attempt to represent themselves by better faces than Glenn Beck or Kirk Cameron.