A. O. Scott in the New York Times:

"The convergence of ancient religious traditions and postmodern pop culture challenges some of the most basic assumptions that many of us who write about popular culture bring to our work. ."

I wonder what those assumptions would be and whether having them would be the same thing as being prejudiced.

You can take what the critics have been doing and turn it around as well:

Was Jami Bernard's 1 star review in the NY Daily News an honest criticism or was it the result of some prejudice? I am not claiming she is anti-Christian, just that her review might be. All the attacks on Gibson, his film, and its fans could feed into the very anti-Christian culture we live in. If any violence breaks out against Christians by anti-Christians, as it did during the French Revolution, World War II, or in the Soviet Union, then the blood will be on Jami Bernard's hands. See how easy it is to do this? Also, note the examples I give of anti-Christian violence are much more recent, by centuries, than the ones given by Foxman, Hikand, Cork, Friedman, Boys, etc... The truth is that now that I have seen the movie I can understand how people might not enjoy the film. I can understand some of the negative reviews, the ones that talk of character development, violence, etc.. But most reviews have not been like that- most talk about the Bible, the controversy, etc.. I really do believe this is the result of anti-Christian bias on the part of many people.