Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Spice - Meet New People
Lifestyle and Social Networking
App
Spice has no paid version because our free version is already 'premium'. No ads, no restrictions, no...
AmpliTube for iPad
Music and Entertainment
7.0
Rate It
App
***NOW WITH EVEN MORE FREE GEAR MODELS PLUS "FENDER COLLECTION 2" AVAILABLE VIA IN-APP PURCHASE TO...
AmpliTube CS for iPad
Music and Entertainment
App
***NOW WITH EVEN MORE FREE GEAR MODELS PLUS "FENDER COLLECTION 2" AVAILABLE VIA IN-APP PURCHASE TO...
AmpliTube CS
Music and Entertainment
App
***NOW WITH EVEN MORE FREE GEAR MODELS PLUS "FENDER COLLECTION 2" AVAILABLE VIA IN-APP PURCHASE TO...
Athla Velocity: Hands-Free Speed Radar (Ultimate Version)
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Considering a PocketRadar or a Stalker Doppler? See our "battlefield" comparison of five speed...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Stuber Review
There’s no denying that ridesharing has become one of the fastest growing industries around the world. What used to be a chore of finding a cab company and calling them for a pickup (or flagging them down in the streets of New York) has now been simplified with a smartphone app. What used to be thirty minutes waiting for your ride to arrive has now been reduced to minutes thanks to technology. So, a movie featuring a lovable Uber driver who gets caught tangled up with a cop chasing a notorious fugitive shouldn’t sound like to much of a stretch.
Stuber introduces us to Stu (Kumail Nanjiani) a man who is madly in love with his plutonic friend and pushed around daily by his boss at the local big chain sporting goods store. In an effort to help subsidize his friend Becca’s (Betty Gilpin) spin studio he moonlights as an Uber driver. Fate intervenes one day when Detective Vic (Dave Bautista) who has literally just undergone corrective eye surgery receives a tip that the drug lord who had murdered his partner just months before has turned up again in the city. Unable to drive, and recently introduced to Uber by his daughter, Detective Vic is forced to hold hostage Stu as he tracks the killer through the city in an effort to bring him to justice.
Stuber features a star-studded cast that brings this amazingly heartfelt and incredibly funny film to the big screen. With a supporting cast such as Karen Gillan, Mira Sorvino and Natalie Morales to back them up, the audience is taken on a laugh filled, action-packed movie that certainly shows better than the advertisements would lead you to believe. The characters are instantly likable, and no matter how much cursing (of which there is a lot) and violence is portrayed on the screen that never changes. Kumail Nanjiani does an amazing job as the lovable Stu. His comedic timing regularly hits the mark, and his portrayal of a man longing to escape the friend zone never gets old. Bautista delivers what may be one of the most defining roles that he has played. While he regularly is able to stand out among his peers in his previous films, this is one of the first where he is asked to carry the film on his own shoulders…and carry it he does. The partnership and true friendship between the two is believable and continues to strengthen as the film moves on. I might even go as far as to say that the chemistry between these two incredible actors is magical.
That’s not to say that Stuber is a perfect movie, it’s predictable and doesn’t really bring anything new to the table. It does however handle the cop who can’t drive scenario far better than any movie that has come before it (like that horrendous movie Taxi that came out back in 2004). It’s a movie that could have gotten away with a PG-13 rating with a little less language, which ultimately may have helped it do better in the theaters (only time will tell of course). That being said, the language itself never feels as though it was thrown in for shock value, in fact I imagine that any of us who might wind up in this particular predicament might have a few choice words of our own to spout out throughout the entire adventure.
I got far more out of Stuber than I thought possible. For a movie that has had little fanfare and releases not long after the acquisition of Twentieth Century Fox, it’s incredibly fun and full of just as much heart. To say that I had not expected this to be a movie where the audience would clap when it was over would be a tremendous understatement. It’s good to see that movie studios haven’t given up on fun ideas, even ones that don’t seem to be exceptionally revolutionary or over-the-top. This is one of the most surprising movies of the summer, in a summer full of blockbusters and big budget films Stuber quietly succeeds where many others are likely to fail. Stuber is certainly a movie worth the price of admission, and you might even come out a little happier than when you went in.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/07/07/stuber/
Stuber introduces us to Stu (Kumail Nanjiani) a man who is madly in love with his plutonic friend and pushed around daily by his boss at the local big chain sporting goods store. In an effort to help subsidize his friend Becca’s (Betty Gilpin) spin studio he moonlights as an Uber driver. Fate intervenes one day when Detective Vic (Dave Bautista) who has literally just undergone corrective eye surgery receives a tip that the drug lord who had murdered his partner just months before has turned up again in the city. Unable to drive, and recently introduced to Uber by his daughter, Detective Vic is forced to hold hostage Stu as he tracks the killer through the city in an effort to bring him to justice.
Stuber features a star-studded cast that brings this amazingly heartfelt and incredibly funny film to the big screen. With a supporting cast such as Karen Gillan, Mira Sorvino and Natalie Morales to back them up, the audience is taken on a laugh filled, action-packed movie that certainly shows better than the advertisements would lead you to believe. The characters are instantly likable, and no matter how much cursing (of which there is a lot) and violence is portrayed on the screen that never changes. Kumail Nanjiani does an amazing job as the lovable Stu. His comedic timing regularly hits the mark, and his portrayal of a man longing to escape the friend zone never gets old. Bautista delivers what may be one of the most defining roles that he has played. While he regularly is able to stand out among his peers in his previous films, this is one of the first where he is asked to carry the film on his own shoulders…and carry it he does. The partnership and true friendship between the two is believable and continues to strengthen as the film moves on. I might even go as far as to say that the chemistry between these two incredible actors is magical.
That’s not to say that Stuber is a perfect movie, it’s predictable and doesn’t really bring anything new to the table. It does however handle the cop who can’t drive scenario far better than any movie that has come before it (like that horrendous movie Taxi that came out back in 2004). It’s a movie that could have gotten away with a PG-13 rating with a little less language, which ultimately may have helped it do better in the theaters (only time will tell of course). That being said, the language itself never feels as though it was thrown in for shock value, in fact I imagine that any of us who might wind up in this particular predicament might have a few choice words of our own to spout out throughout the entire adventure.
I got far more out of Stuber than I thought possible. For a movie that has had little fanfare and releases not long after the acquisition of Twentieth Century Fox, it’s incredibly fun and full of just as much heart. To say that I had not expected this to be a movie where the audience would clap when it was over would be a tremendous understatement. It’s good to see that movie studios haven’t given up on fun ideas, even ones that don’t seem to be exceptionally revolutionary or over-the-top. This is one of the most surprising movies of the summer, in a summer full of blockbusters and big budget films Stuber quietly succeeds where many others are likely to fail. Stuber is certainly a movie worth the price of admission, and you might even come out a little happier than when you went in.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/07/07/stuber/
The Strategy Builder: How to Create and Communicate More Effective Strategies
Duncan Angwin and Stephen Cummings
Book
A visual and interactive guide to building and communicating strategies that actually work YOUR...
Tour Tempo Total Game
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Used by beginners through Major Championship winners on the PGA Tour, and validated by an...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.