But you certainly raise the stakes when you attempt to mix humor (or drama, for that matter) with someone else's religion, race or ethnicity. A certain deftness is required, a sensitivity to the matters at hand, not to mention an awareness of the cultural grievances, real or perceived, of the group being portrayed. People who have a memory of having suffered in some way or found themselves on the receiving end of nasty stereotypes are not likely to have a lot of patience with ham-handed attempts to find humor in the things they consider important or sacred.

When it comes to film, even those who are not in that situation can see themselves (or their ancestors) as badly misunderstood. Case in point: Steven Spielberg's movie "Amistad" told the moving, historical story about a successful rebellion aboard a Spanish slave ship in 1839 and the court trials faced by the slaves once they landed the vessel in Connecticut. Great subject, right? Well, yes, except for the fact the the white Connecticut Congregationalists--many of them anti-slavery, and some directly involved in helping the slaves--were portrayed in the movie not simply with historical inaccuracy, but as downright weird, holding large crucifixes and shouting about saving souls. People I spoke with in the United Church of Christ, the successor organization to those (and other) churches, were dumbfounded by the portrayal. They simply couldn't figure out where those ideas came from.

But there is such a thing as artistic license, isn't there? So it comes down to this: best to give some movies a miss. And, by the way, if you want to see a current film that deals with the theological issue of pure evil in the world, check out "No Country for Old Men." You'll see why Javier Bardem got that Oscar.