Someone who irritates me about as much as Michael Moore is Mel Gibson. I found his Revolutionary War film, "The Patriot", repulsive in its depiction of false atrocities (most notably torching a church full of people). Such are the lies born of ignorant, rabble-rousing jingoism. Moore is just as bad as he would have us believe in Minutemen who chanted prayers as they sawed off the heads of Loyalist soldiers and civilians.

It is possible, even in war, to avoid descent into savagery. Gibson made money from imaginary barbarism while Moore makes his in apologias for the real thing.

I think Gibson's portrayal of the British as church burners was not only wrong, but (by showing the British engaging in Nazi-like behavior) it served the cause of moral relativism (something many of Gibson's fans would condemn). Still, unlike Michael Moore, Gibson doesn't market his films as documentaries. Thus, the false church-burning depiction, while odious and indefensible, doesn't rise even to the Oliver Stone level of historical fabrication -- much less Michael Moore's.

Ignorant people who saw "The Patriot" as factually truthful might easily concluse that the British "weren't that different" from Zarqawi, and thus miss the essential difference between civilization and barbarism. Had a British officer burned a church filled with civilians, he'd have been court-martialed and hanged for it.

That's an important distinction, and it shouldn't be lost because of inaccurate films.

I think I would have to disagree with the statements about Mel Gibsons film "The Patriot." The film was not portraying all British as aweful "church burners." If you would take note, it was only portraying one officer as being a "church burner" and the officer committing the atrocities in the movie was natorious in real life for doing so. The officer was General(I believe he was a General, but his rank is irrelivant) Tarleton. General Tarleton was nicknamed Butcher Tarleton and was given that name for a reason. Where as he never burned a church full of people he did slaughter inocents, and these inocents were even Tories. he was also known for not taking prisoners because they would slow him down. Therefore he would kill anyone who surrendered.