c. 2007 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Applying a religious label to anything other than a person has always left me feeling a little squirrelly.

Only a being with volition and free will could choose to call himself or herself “Christian” or “Buddhist” or “Jewish.”

So the notion of “Christian music” or “Buddhist film” or “Jewish art” seems like a fallacy to me because a creation of human hands _ especially one as subjectively viewed as a work of art _ cannot be inherently religious.

Or can it?

In my own religious tradition, which is Christian and, more specifically, evangelical Protestant, when something is marketed to me as “Christian,” my instinct is to be leery.

I suppose it’s a reaction against those who would give their creation _ be it a manuscript, an economic strategy or political ideology _ a religious designation as some kind of divine imprimatur. That, to me, is the worst misuse of religious labels.

Still, there are many creative folks who happily accept religious labels for their work, Christian or otherwise. For every U2, there is a Jars of Clay, metaphorically speaking. Both groups produce music infused with Christian ideas and imagery; one produces its work under a Christian label, the other does not.

To my mind, the label doesn’t make one iota of difference in the effect the music has on the listener, nor does, frankly, the intent of the artist. That’s the beauty of art.

I got to thinking about religious labels while reading about the International Buddhist Film Festival held in Singapore in May.

The existence of the festival itself was intriguing enough, but so were the films being screened. The Chinese drama “Shower” and documentaries about a monk from Bhutan and a San Francisco chef (and Zen priest) were shown alongside episodes of “The Simpsons” and “King of the Hill.”

It was that last part that really got my attention.

I wonder whether Matt Groening and Mike Judge realize they’ve produced Buddhist fare. The “Simpsons” episode is the one from 2001 in which Lisa Simpson, disillusioned by the commercialization of Christmas, decides to become a Buddhist.

The “King of the Hill” episode, “Won’t You Pimai Neighbor,” tells the story of a group of Buddhist monks who travel to Arlen, Texas, because they believe Bobby Hill is the reincarnation of “Lama Sanglug.” Bobby goes along with his new identity until he’s told lamas aren’t allowed to have girlfriends.

The International Buddhist Film Festival purposely includes works that contain “the most subtle reference … to the most obvious,” explained the festival’s executive director, Gaetano Maida, by e-mail from China.

“We first look for good stories well told,” he said. “The criteria for inclusion are: Buddhist subject matter, director, context or implication.”

Harold Ramis, the director best known for comedy classics such as “Animal House” and “Caddyshack,” once told me that one of the best compliments he has received about his work came from a Buddhist newspaper that declared his film “Groundhog Day” _ in which Bill Murray relives the same day over and over again until be becomes a better man _ to be “the greatest Buddhist movie ever made.”

“It’s a movie that doesn’t mention the Buddha or Buddhism once,” said Ramis, who describes himself as “Buddhish,” “and yet it kind of lays out what it’s all about.”

When I asked Maida what films are considered Buddhist “classics,” he listed Martin Scorsese’s masterful bio-pic “Kundun,” about the 14th Dalai Lama; the 1997 Korean gangster comedy “Hi! Dharma”; and “Jacob’s Ladder,” the 1990 thriller starring Tim Robbins about a flashbacking Vietnam veteran that was based partly on the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

“Buddhist philosophy has a core insight that this world is a projection of (the) mind,” Maida says. “Film (is) a contemporary medium (just) as suited to expressing Buddhist ideas as the thangka painting or sculpture more closely identified with Buddhist traditions.”

So, film is literally a projection of the mind, and, in turn, of the world, whether the particular lens is “Kundun” or “King of the Hill.”

When you think about it that way, perhaps giving works of art religious labels isn’t so troublesome. Maybe I was just projecting.

(Cathleen Falsani is a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and author of “The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People.”)

KRE/RB END FALSANI750 words

A photo of Cathleen Falsani is available via https://religionnews.com.