A Review: Mel Gibson's The Passion

[The Dude]

I recently saw a private screening of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, and thought I should share some thoughts with you.

Let me start with a few disclaimers that are relevant and neccessary. I am a Christian, and have been since high school. I currently go to a Christian liberal arts school, and viewed the private screening there. Unlike Mel, I am not Catholic. Much of what I say comes from an interview Mel Gibson gave before the film was screened. Please take what I say as my impressions, and although I am fairly certain they are accurate, this is certainly not a Gibson press release.

First things first. There has been a lot of controversy as to whether this film is anti-semitic. Having seen it in its entirity, I can say this in absalute confidence. On Wednesday, when the movie comes out, there will be no more controversy. Not only is it not anti-semitic, but there is nothing in the movie that could even be reasonably misconstrued as such.

Also, there has been some talk about why the film is only being released in certain theatres, most of which are out of the way. And why is it being realeased so dominantly in very Christian popluated ares? Well, the answer to these are different than most people think - it's pure and simple economics. The Passion is opening in as many theatres as it can. Mel Gibson would love nothing more than for every theatre in the nation to show the movie. The problem is not very many theatres wanted to show the movie in the first place. Contraty to what many Christians believe, the reason isn't because they are anti-Christian and want to stifle the message of the film - they just didn't think people would come watch it. Upon seeing screenings of the film, hundreds of church leaders across the nation have taken the liberty of renting, so to say, entire screens to open the movie on. These churches are eager enough to get this movie shown, that they are willing to gurantee from their own coffers the sale of tickets. Where there is demand, the movie will be supplied.

That said, I was surprised at the 'sermon' of this movie. That is to say that it didn't have one. There is no 'repent and be saved' message. There is no 'give up your worldly ways and follow Christ' implications in the slightest.

The movie simply depicts the 'passion' (from the Greek pathos, meaning 'suffering') of Jesus Christ. A select handful of Jews and Romans put him through the most horriffic 12 hours possibly imaginable. And whether context you watch the film in, you will be moved.

It is entirely possible to watch the film in a secular context. What I mean is, if you choose to watch the film and take no religious implications at all, the movie itself doesn't push you to. It simply takes you through the last 12 hours of the life of a man called Jesus Christ. You do not have to accept the Christian doctrine in order to be moved by what Jesus went through. In fact, as the paragraph above implies, the point isn't even to get you to accept doctine. Simply watch and behold. Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories. And that's fine. Experience the film as you will. I will wager to say, though, that there will inevitably be many people who walk out of the theatre and actively seek answers to questions they now have about this Jesus guy.

Lastly, I need to mention just how brutal the film really is. To undertand my following comment, know this: I have seen Braveheart, the Patriot, Saving Private Ryan, and just about every other film with graphic violence - and it has never bothered me. I guess I'm de-sensitized to that kind of thing. That said, there is no single scene in any movie I have ever seen that is as heart-wrenchingly graphic as an hour and fifteen minutes non-stop of this film. It is by far the most relentlessly brutal movie ever made, and it is extremely difficult to watch. No words I can say here will prepare you for what you will see.

[Cyrus]

Quite possibly, a man with ideas disturbing to Romans and Jews alike, of the time, was crucified in the ancient place of what is now Israel, some 2000 years ago, probably by the Romans who used this method for examplary punishment. The man's sufferings have continued to this day, if metaphorically. (Feel free to replace my words with those of your own choice, according to your religious and/or philosophical viewpoints, eg Man instead of man.)

The figure and the story of that man, who was subequently called the Christ, whenever they were recreated in modern times, even by artists trying to generally adhere to the Biblical plot, were met invariably with extreme passion and hostility. That hostility usually comes from Christ's inheritors, ie the Church, which objected, for instance, quite violently in Italy when Pier-Paolo Pasolini, a Marxist, gay Italian director "dared" in the 60s to film "Vangelo, Secondo Matteo" ("The Gospel According to St. Matthew"). Martin Scorsese was villified in the 80s for shooting "The Last Temptation of Christ", based on the book by rebelious Nikos Kazantzakis, a writer who had seen most of his works officially condemned by the Church.

Much ado about ...not much, if you ask me.

Now, Mel Gibson, another Catholic, tries his hand. (What is it with all those Catholic boys and Christ? It's clearly a fascination.) Only, today, it's the charge of ...anti-semitism, rather than heresy, that is hurled at the work and it's coming from Zionists. Who (as usual in all such cases) have not even bothered to see the damn film. Jesus Christ Almighty -- if you excuse the pun.

Maybe Christians would have been better off emulating the Muslims, by forbidding any painting or artistic reproduction of Christian Gods and Prophets altogether. Now, there's a concept that John Ashcroft hasn't thought of yet! (Anyone got Justice Department's number?)

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Much ado about ...not much, if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the story of Christ or your post?

[Cyrus]

But since you understood not much from that post, you may as well pin that label on it.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It just strikes me as funny that the same cadre of media folk that defend Oliver Stone's revisionism under the mantle of artistic license, condemn Gibson for the same thing.

Brings to mind something about "casting the first stone."

Freedom of expression is freedom of expression is freedom of expression. There is no "right" to not be offended.

[Cyrus]

"Freedom of expression is freedom of expression is freedom of expression. There is no "right" to not be offended."

Absolutely agree.

"It just strikes me as funny that the same cadre of media folk that defend Oliver Stone's revisionism under the mantle of artistic license, condemn Gibson for the same thing."

FWIW, I think there's a difference between the story of Christ and the JFK assasination. Stone was supposed to show us, as he said, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about a historical fact. The "story" of Christ has been told in the Bible but interpretations of it are allowed in the name of artistic (and philosophical) licence. That's why artists paint the Madonna every which way without offending "historical accuracy" (can't do that with Daley Plaza!). There is nothing about philosophy or art that can be tied to the JFK affair, just politics and History.

[HDPM]

"Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories"


/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Gamblor]

Only, today, it's the charge of ...anti-semitism, rather than heresy, that is hurled at the work and it's coming from Zionists.

Naturally, it's those damn Zionists again. All Jews are Zionists, all Zionists are Jews.

And all Jews are too-easily-offended. All blacks are monkeys, all Italians are fat, stupid, wop dagos. I've heard it all before.

Who (as usual in all such cases) have not even bothered to see the damn film. Jesus Christ Almighty -- if you excuse the pun.

"as usual in all such cases"? Is that the same as "Jews are usually always preoccupied with money?"

The problem is that for Jews, the film represents the cause of 2,000 years of persecution at the hands of Christians. Not that the film in and of itself is anti-semitic (although your post might be), it's the potential for the film to incite anti-semitism. Naturally, as usual with bigots like Cyrus, the entire Jewish (read: Zionist) community is a monolith and consists of but one opinion on the film: whiny crybabiness.

Read the Canadian Jewish Congress' statement on the film, smart boy.

Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, prior to its release date of February 25, has generated much controversy over its potentially negative impact on the Jewish community and Christian-Jewish relations. At the same time, among Christians who already have seen this dramatic representation of Christ's Passion there are those who have praised it and affirmed that it does not stir anti-Jewish feelings.

The story the film depicts is at the core of the Christian faith and as Jews we are sensitive to both the profound meaning of the crucifixion for Christians and to how deeply the Passion engages their intellect and emotions. The subject matter of the film, however, also deals head on with events that are at the very root of the historic divide between Christianity and Judaism.

There are believers who do take all the Gospels literally but it is our understanding that others, equally true to their faith, do not. There are those who, among other things, challenge the veracity of a judicial proceeding before the Sanhedrin and/or the High Priest and indeed question the involvement of any Jews in the trial, condemnation and death of Jesus. Crucifixion it must be stressed, was a Roman, not Jewish, form of capital punishment.

Historically, therefore, what transpired at the time of Jesus is unclear. What is clear and significant specifically for Christian-Jewish relations is that the actualization of the deicide charge, flowing from some of the Gospel accounts and the perverse use to which these were put, has led over these two millennia to the immeasurable suffering of the Jewish people. It is this reality that worries Jews and Christians about Gibson's film.

Admittedly, the state of Christian-Jewish relations in many countries, and certainly in Canada, has undergone a remarkable transformation for the better in the past few decades. We only have to look back over the earlier history of Canada, when two principal themes -- the rejection of Jesus and the deicide charge -- dominated Christian attitudes towards Jews, to appreciate how much things have evolved.

Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s, the founding in 1977 of the Canadian Christian Jewish Consultation (CCJC) and continuing through the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, Catholic-Jewish relations have progressed to a point one would not have believed possible two generations ago. Four documents dramatically reflect these changes in Canada: the Anglican Church's From Darkness to Dawn: Rethinking Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism; the United Church's Bearing Faithful Witness; the Roman Catholic Church's Renewing Our Common Bonds with the Jewish Community and the most recent, A Church Leaders' Letter against Antisemitism.

These documents, among other things:

Categorically reject the deicide charge: "This calumny should never again be repeated" (Renewing Our Common Bonds).

Recognize and glorify Christianity's Jewish roots: "Jesus was and always remained a Jew"; (Renewing Our Common Bonds), "Understanding Torah must become an important undertaking for Christians, perhaps the most important biblical study" (Bearing Faithful Witness) and "We... are ... deeply grateful for the Jewish roots of our faith traditions" (Church Leaders' Letter).

Abandon supercessionism (i.e. the notion that Christianity's advent negated God's covenant with the Jewish people) and affirm Judaism's vigour and inspirational power not only for its adherents but also for other believers: "The Jewish people's ... election and mission have a permanent validity and they play a decisive role in the religious history of humanity"; (Renewing Our Common Bonds), and "We...declare our unqualified gratitude for the gifts of the Jewish people to world civilization in general and Canadian society in particular" (Church Leaders' Letter).

Understand antisemitism and its roots and commit vigorously to fight for its eradication: "We acknowledge with sadness and regret, and with no little shame, the historic burden of persecution, which Jews have borne throughout western history; a burden all too often inflicted by Christians, who have maligned Jesus' own people in Jesus' name," and "We challenge all churches, parishes, congregations and people of good will to find ways and means to expose and eradicate antisemitism... (Church Leaders' Letter) and

Commit to pursue Christian-Jewish dialogue, for its own sake yes, but also as a means for tikkun olam, i.e. the repairing of the world: "- our common calling with Jews to align ourselves with God's world-mending work"; (Bearing Faithful Witness).

All these many years, Canadian Christians and Jews, multilaterally and bilaterally, have worked together very hard and very successfully for rapprochement between our two faiths. We are confident, therefore, that our Christian partners are most sensitive to our concerns over anything in the film The Passion of the Christ that might help fuel antisemitism. We are relying on them to play a constructive, harmony fostering role in the viewing of the film for those Christians who have not been engaged much or at all in the dialogue process and for whom the results of this process have perhaps not filtered through.

As antisemitism is dangerously on the rise throughout the world, we are also looking to them for leadership in sensitizing their fellow Christians in those countries where Christian-Jewish relations are less advanced, on the importance of acceptance, respect and peaceful co-existence.

It is our hope and expectation that, apart from the central role The Passion of the Christ is to play in moving Christians and strengthening them in their faith, Gibson's film also will be used to foster greater mutual understanding and further demystification of Christian and Jewish beliefs. In other words, we must not allow the film to be a source of tension; we must translate it into an opportunity.

We conclude with the words shared with us about The Passion of the Christ by Fr. Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., a long-time member of the CCJC, who is one of the representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on this important national interfaith dialogue group: "We have embarked on a journey of reconciliation that only moves forward. To life... to reconciliation and to peace, together."

To this goal, we are all passionately committed.

Keith M. Landy
National President

Rabbi Dr. Reuven P. Bulka
National Chair
Religious and Inter-religious Affairs

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
"Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories"

[/ QUOTE ]

I incorrectly worded this statement. I certainly did not mean to imply that I believed the story of Christ's crucifiction (and subsequent resurrection) to be fictitious.

[David Steele]

[ThaSaltCracka]

could you have made your reply a little longer? /images/graemlins/wink.gif
For some reason I see some sort of paranoia from the Jewish community about this film, and I don't undertand why. Gamblor, I read your whole reply, and understand why there could be concern but.....
I have seen countless Christian leaders say publicy before this film comes out, saying that Jews are not responsible for Jesus' death, all of them reaffirming that they will stress this to their congregations. What is the concern???

I agree that if you don't learn from the past your doomed to repeat it, but this is too much. AMERICANS and CANADIANS and EURPOEANS, the people most likely to see this film are far to progressive minded to think the Jews caused Jesus' death. It seems like Jews are always looking, excessively, for anti-semitism, mostly through the Anti-Defamation League, in the same way that Blacks always seem to find racism though the NAACP. I may get in trouble for this but... both groups seem to spin, manipulate, and/or misinterpret a lot of things/situations.

I wonder what people would think if there was a Christian or White Defamation league.

[Gamblor]

It seems like Jews are always looking, excessively, for anti-semitism, mostly through the Anti-Defamation League, in the same way that Blacks always seem to find racism though the NAACP. I may get in trouble for this but... both groups seem to spin, manipulate, and/or misinterpret a lot of things/situations.

How many times do you beat a slave before he begins to cower every time you mention his name?

Seems to me that's the extent of it.

Trust me, it has more to do with the role Gibson's father may have played than Gibson himself - Jewish families tend to be extremely close nit and fathers have a pretty big influence on their sons... generally.

[The Dude]

Gamblor,

Please do not condemn Mel or his actions because of beliefs his father has voiced. Mel has on numerous occaisions stated that he certainly does not share those views with his father, but he loves him dearly and will not, under any circumstances, let the public or the media drive a wedge between them.

If there is to be any passing of guilt down generations, let God be the one to do so. You have no more a right to hold Mel responsible for his father's actions than I have a right to hold Ciaphus's children responsible for his (I believe Ciaphus was the high priest the Gospels seem to hold responsible for crucifying Jesus).

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Please do not condemn Mel or his actions because of beliefs his father has voiced. Mel has on numerous occaisions stated that he certainly does not share those views with his father, but he loves him dearly and will not, under any circumstances, let the public or the media drive a wedge between them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. And I doubt there is problem with his movie in this area.

But the guy is a flake. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[Gamblor]

If there is to be any passing of guilt down generations, let God be the one to do so. You have no more a right to hold Mel responsible for his father's actions than I have a right to hold Ciaphus's children responsible for his (I believe Ciaphus was the high priest the Gospels seem to hold responsible for crucifying Jesus).

I don't hold Mel responsible for any actions other than his own. I'm simply explaining that the outcry has more to do with the disbelief that one's opinions are completely independent of one's upbringing. It should be pointed out that Mel sensitively altered some parts of the movie to prevent exactly what some Jewish groups fear may occur, and this should be noted. Art is art, unfortunately, and we won't get to see the original picture, but something tells me that wasn't so bad either, at least to a modern, educated person. But Mel only ought to consider these issues when making such a movie. That is all.

But go to Italy, where Lazio soccer fans held up a massive banner taunting the mainly Jewish Roma fans, calling Auschwitz the "True home of the Jews", and I'm slightly more concerned about the release of the movie.

Truth be told, as usual, the media has blown the issue way out of proportion, turning a small complaint into a worldwide outburst, making all Jews look like crybabies. Subtle anti-semitism or media sensationalism? The latter, I hope.

Frankly, anyone who can't distinguish between movie and real life shouldn't be allowed in public to begin with /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[ThaSaltCracka]

How many times do you beat a slave before he begins to cower every time you mention his name?
I have no idea what you are talking about

[Gamblor]

The Jewish response to perceived anti-semitism.

How many times over history have Jews been murdered, subjugated, enslaved, tortured, forcibly converted, yada yada yada...

Do you blame them for seeing a movie that depicts the reason why all that happened and getting a little antsy?

At least they're not blowing themselves up on NY subways and in Chicago Pizza parlours.

[ThaSaltCracka]

don't you think that Jews are a little bit paranoid about anti-semitism?

[Phat Mack]

Are you referring to the story of Christ or your post?

I think he's referring to controversy. I walked through a picket line to see "The Last Temptation..." I'm still wondering what all the excitement was about.

[Gamblor]

don't you think that Jews are a little bit paranoid about anti-semitism?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you"
-Anonymous

The fact that you ask that question eases my mind about you, but then Raoul Wallenburg and Oskar Schindler I'm sure eased the minds of the people they saved.

It's easy to downplay it when it doesn't happen to you.

To the people it did happen to, remember that 6 million isn't a number. It's my grandfather, it's my great aunt and uncle, it's the grandparents and great grandparents of my friends and family. It's ancestors who were tortured until they accepted Christ. Jewish day schools learn just as much about history as they do science. It's probably what ghettoizes Jews today, is the shared history - for the good or bad.

What really, really scares me about Mel Gibson (and by extension, the movie he produced)? Sure, he has said his father's views are only those of his father. But when a father (http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb/0219gibson.html) expresses views like these, the just response is not to "live and let live", but rather to condemn them outright. And unfortunately, Mel has yet to do that. Even sons who love their fathers should correct them when they're wrong.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Mel has come out saying that he disagrees with his fathers opinion, however he does not criticize his father in public. I would think this is a polite diasgreement between father and son.

[Gamblor]

If you don't mind me asking, where?

Don't you think claims like the Jews are trying to form one world government deserve outright condemnation, father or otherwise?

(Not a loaded question - I'm asking if Mel ought to stick up for his morals over his father, if his morals are indeed as you claim)

[ThaSaltCracka]

the interview he did with Diane Sawyer on ABC, he said he does not believe the same things his father does, he then said he loved his dad and he wouldn't let the media drive a wedge between him and his dad.

Don't you think claims like the Jews are trying to form one world government deserve outright condemnation, father or otherwise?
I think sometimes some statements are so outlandish that no reply is needed. Most people are reasonable enough to know this isn't true, and for the people who think this is true a condemantion from anyone probably wouldn't sway their closed minds.

I think Mels morals are right in line with christianity, he said this in the interview as well. I don't know if you saw it, but it would have probably changed your view of him. For some reason I can connect to what he is saying and been through. He is a flawed man, by his own admission, as everyone is, if he doesn't want to chastize his dad in public, thats his perogative. Maybe not embarrasing a family member in public is one of his morals as well.

[The Dude]

He has stated publicly in several interviews that he does not share his father's views on many things - including the Holocaust. I watched him affirm that in person when he did the interview at my school.

What he refuses to do is let the media drive a wedge by forcing him to make separating comments. Everyone knows the comments of Mel's father are so outrageous they don't NEED a response. Why should we force Mel to say something we all know if all it will accomplish is putting distance between him and his father?

Granted, Mel is a little quirky and I see many things differently than he does - both historically and doctinally. However, I am embarrassed at how Christianity has used these differences as an excuse to bicker amongst each other and create 8 million competing denominations. Aren't we all here for the same purpose? Inter-Christian bickering sickens me, albeit not as much as blind hatred and bigotry.

No, Mel's film is not 100% histroically correct. No, Mel's film is not the whole story of gospel. He never claimed it to be either. It is his artistic rendition of a story he thinks needs to be told. Sounds like many other people who make movies to me.

It's too bad everybody (Christians, Jews, the media, EVERYBODY) has put so much baggage on this film. Watch it let it affect you in your own way, for crying out loud.

[Gamblor]

I think sometimes some statements are so outlandish that no reply is needed.

They were saying the same thing in the United States in the 1920s when Hitler and the early Nazis (before their rise to power) were advocating violence against Jews and that the Jews were keeping the German people from happiness.

To you and I, and any liberal-minded educated people, it's nonsense, but to someone who otherwise doesn't know and frankly didn't care until Hutton Gibson made them realize that the Jews are indeed evil and must be stopped, it's somewhat dangerous.

Maybe not embarrasing a family member in public is one of his morals as well.

I suppose embarrasing a family member is a higher moral than incitement to hatred.

Probably the same reason the International Court's likely to ignore the outright murder by Arabs of Jewish civilians riding in buses while condemning the ungodly horrors of having your field confiscated and having a roadblock in your city so that the evil occupiers can build a chain-link fence - which obviously is just a land grab.

[Gamblor]

Watch it let it affect you in your own way, for crying out loud.

Agreed. It's a movie. I plan on seeing it for entertainment purposes.

All Mel has to say is "I love my father very much, but he's absolutely incorrect about the holocaust and the 'evils of the Jews'."

[Gamblor]

If something offends you, it offends you, that's your problem.

But "V'ahavta l'reyacha ca'mocha"

"Love your neighbour as if he was yourself."

Why offend someone?

But ultimately, I don't think anybody is offended by this movie, and nobody should be. The problem is that people might misinterpret the movie to claim that Jews are the murderers of "our Lord and Saviour", and suddenly we're back in 1105. If it prevents just one anti-semitic-motivated murder by some lunatic, isn't it worth this trouble, at least to the victim's family? Can't Mel go without $50 million just for that man's life? (on the side, what do you think the chances are that HE created this fuss just to boost hype?)

I don't think that means the movie should be banned, nor do I think it ought to be changed. But there has to be some clarification of the point of the movie, some way to show that Jews are not the evil murderers they could easily be misconstrued to be.

From what I understand, Mel has done this satisfactorily. So if you'd like, pay your $11, and settle in for a night of entertainment, as I intend to. I prefer popcorn with loads of butter. You?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that people might misinterpret the movie to claim that Jews are the murderers of "our Lord and Saviour", and suddenly we're back in 1105. If it prevents just one anti-semitic-motivated murder by some lunatic, isn't it worth this trouble, at least to the victim's family?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be more concerned about movies like "Natural Born Killers" than a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Jews themselves are inciting anti-semitism as some will view thier attacks on this movie as an attack against Christianity.

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think the chances are that HE created this fuss just to boost hype

[/ QUOTE ]

About the same as the planes crashing into in the WTC and Pentagon being an Isreali Plot. I do think Mel has managed the fuss created by the Jews and others brilliantly.

Stu

[banditbdl]

All Mel needs to do is talk to his father about it privately and state that he does not believe either "the holocaust is a myth" or that "Jews or evil". He does not need to single out his father as being incorrect on those issues in the national media. What you're asking him to do is make what amounts to an unconsciounable public slap in the face of his own father.

[Gamblor]

The Jews themselves are inciting anti-semitism as some will view thier attacks on this movie as an attack against Christianity.

I still think that when the nerd that the bullies pick on complains and whines to the teacher, it indeed provokes the bully further.

Does that make bullying acceptable?

what do you think the chances are that HE created this fuss just to boost hype

I will quickly remove my tongue from my cheek.

I do think Mel has managed the fuss created by the Jews and others brilliantly.

Those damn Jews again. Always acting as one without any individual opinions. Same as the criminal blacks, or the terrorist Arabs.

But of course, he has certainly managed it. Ironically, it's the media that has made much more of a fuss about it than anyone else. Most Jewish organizations have simply expressed concern, not demanded that it be barred from release or anything drastic like that.

[J_V]

what's the word phat mack? should I spend the 9 bones to see this one?


Remember, i'll probably fade your answer.........

[slavic]

It is by far the most relentlessly brutal movie ever made, and it is extremely difficult to watch. No words I can say here will prepare you for what you will see.

At one point in my study of Latin I was reading into Roman history and their execution methods. Crucifiction is as horrible a death as can ever be imagined. It was a display of hell to the public and I can only imagine that if Gibson's work is as detailed as proclaimed there will be many queezy stomachs.

[MMMMMM]

Any human who would crucify another does not deserve to inhabit human form. They (along with the tyrants and suicide bombers of today) should have been born in an alternate universe amongst only their own kind, rather than upon this earth to make life hell for gentle people.

Truly I sometimes feel that a large percentage of the human race is unfit to be human, and should instead have been born in another realm, or as lower animals. The cruel Caesars and priests, the Spanish inquisitors, the Stalins and Pol Pots, etc.--and all the minions of the above types who aided directly in such horrific cruelties as they inflicted, are the greatest evildoers in the history of world.

Perhaps humanity is of two races: the kind, and the unkind.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Perhaps humanity is of two races: the kind, and the unkind.
I like that 6M

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gamblor,
read this, this is from my man Bill O'Reilly, you may like it O'Reilly (http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle?JSESSIONID=A7KG4v3zmwp1Jl7tegnr3Kug FhDQ5Y0bI3pWAcYgwGqsN5uox6uM!749898343)

[elwoodblues]

I like how he calls it a no-spin "review" of the movie yet he never gives a review of the movie...he gives a review of the politics surrounding the movie.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
But go to Italy, where Lazio soccer fans held up a massive banner taunting the mainly Jewish Roma fans, calling Auschwitz the "True home of the Jews",

[/ QUOTE ]


for real... WHO CARES.

just sounds like bigots holding up a banner, but why let it really bother you?

[ThaSaltCracka]

well he is more of a political/social pundit then a movie pundit

[Gamblor]

just sounds like bigots holding up a banner, but why let it really bother you?

How far is it from that banner, to one of those people sitting around their house, saying "f*ckin' Jews, let's go kick one of their asses, their team beat us", to "let's go f*ck up some Jewish stores" to "allright, let's just f*ckin' get 'em all"

I don't think the Nazi party ideology was formed overnight - as usual on this planet, ideas take time to evolve - they move slowly, gaining momentum through time. For example, deicide accusations turn into European Crusades, turn into Spanish Inquisitions, until finally, some Austrian comes along and just decides to be brutally honest - "let's just kill 'em all".

Who knows, maybe the Nazi Holocaust wasn't the culmination, but rather just another step towards the pinnacle.

Ultimately, I have a little more faith in most of humankind than to expect that. But not all of humankind.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
don't you think that Jews are a little bit paranoid about anti-semitism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they have every reason to be.

[baggins]

"What is clear and significant specifically for Christian-Jewish relations is that the actualization of the deicide charge, flowing from some of the Gospel accounts and the perverse use to which these were put, has led over these two millennia to the immeasurable suffering of the Jewish people."

the suffering of the Jewish People? does that mean all Jewish People? because it certainly sounds like it.

one thing to keep in mind - Jesus Christ did not cause the suffering of Jewish People.

[baggins]

"They were saying the same thing in the United States in the 1920s when Hitler and the early Nazis (before their rise to power) were advocating violence against Jews and that the Jews were keeping the German people from happiness."

If Mel Gibson's dad had any position of power in this country, perhaps there would be a reason to condemn him, to step in and make sure things don't get out of hand. but, unlike Hitler, he's just Mel Gibson's dad. He has a few goofy ideas. they can't harm anyone but himself.

[baggins]

"I do think Mel has managed the fuss created by the Jews and others brilliantly.

Those damn Jews again. Always acting as one without any individual opinions. Same as the criminal blacks, or the terrorist Arabs.

But of course, he has certainly managed it. Ironically, it's the media that has made much more of a fuss about it than anyone else. Most Jewish organizations have simply expressed concern, not demanded that it be barred from release or anything drastic like that"

Why is it that someone can't refer to Jews in a general sense without you coming to defend them? but in the same post you can make general statements about The Media as one big hive-minded group? can't specific media outlets have their own separate positions on things? or is it possible that using terms to group people together in a general sense has its place, and has valid meaning? how come The Jewish People were targets of hatred for thousands of years, yet The Jewish People can't collectively (with the same looseness of the idea of 'collectivity' in both cases) have been responsible for bringing up charges of anti-semitism?

[Gamblor]

one thing to keep in mind - Jesus Christ did not cause the suffering of Jewish People.

Nobody is saying he did.

But "the perverse use to which (the Gospels) were put" certainly has.

[Gamblor]

He has a few goofy ideas. they can't harm anyone but himself.

Until some kid in a small town somewhere decides he's right, begins a small-time organization that promotes his views, slowly gains tolerance, then acceptance, then support, and begins to become a politically influential. What then? The fight is a thousand times as hard as it is now, and the stakes a thousand times higher.

Nip it in the bud.

[Boris]

Why don't you just convert to Buddhism? Then you won't have to stress yourself out with all this fear of persecution.

[Gamblor]

Good point. Generalizations in any sense are dangerous.

Next time, I'll point to specific media outlets and actors in the drama.

As far as my defences go, let's turn the tables.

It's a little something I like to call the "A lack of Chlorine in the Gene Pool".

It's Medieval times, and the concentration of Christian civilization is in Western Europe. At that time, any Christian with any serious intelligence was immediately shuffled off to seminary and religious school.

From there, the best and brightest were taught to read and write, so they would enter the clergy. They became priests and bishops and all that stuff. The problem? The Christian clergy is not permitted to marry and have children. The genetics of the best and brightest of the Christians were not passed on.

Conclusion: There are no intelligent people today of Christian descent. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Now there's some logical sense to that, but nobody in their right mind would take that conclusion seriously, because it's ultimately ridiculous.

But suppose there are some uneducated people somewhere that believe this, and decide to campaign against those of Christian descent holding any political office or really any position of power. (Ignore the impossibility of the whole thing given the Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc. majority in North America)

Wouldn't you take exception? Wouldn't you be posting here constantly if people were defending that argument?

Set your keyboards to "Flame"

[ThaSaltCracka]

Until some kid in a small town somewhere decides he's right, begins a small-time organization that promotes his views, slowly gains tolerance, then acceptance, then support, and begins to become a politically influential. What then? The fight is a thousand times as hard as it is now, and the stakes a thousand times higher.

you are waaayyyy to paranoid. God forbid anyone say anything bad about jewish people or there culture, I wouldn't want to start a new group of Neo-Nazi's in my backyard. will you shut the [censored] up all ready?

can you move on from something that happened 60 years ago. Don't act like Jews are the only group of people to be persecuted and enslaved and tortured throughout history. Blacks, Irish, Catholics, yes Catholics, muslims, christians, ethnic albanians, Kurds, Bosnians, Aborigines.... the list goes on. While the biggest atrocity may have happened to the Jews, that doesn't mean we have to walk on egg shells everytime we talk about jews or Judaism.
If I were you I would be far more worried about a terrorist trying to kill you and your countrymen, in Israel or Canada, then I would be of a group of anti-semites coming to you door burning stars of david.

[ThaSaltCracka]

no because it is incredibly stupid

[Gamblor]

can you move on from something that happened 60 years ago.

Classic. Are you an idiot? No, I can't move on, first because half of my family disappeared, and second because what reason is there to believe it may not happen again?

We live in comfortable, liberal, North America, where it's not an issue because these two nations were built on acceptance and tolerance, and for that we should be proud. But what about Europe, where old habits die hard, and parts of the Arab world, where dictators keep the public somewhere between the Bronze Age and Galileo?

If I were you I would be far more worried about a terrorist trying to kill you and your countrymen, in Israel or Canada, then I would be of a group of anti-semites coming to you door burning stars of david.

Yep I am far more worried about that. But the reasons why those terrorists are trying to kill "me and my countrymen" are the same reasons as before. "Prophet-killers!"

Among the best-selling books in the Arab world? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Are you telling me, that after two thousand years of consistency, this kind of hatred disappears in sixty? Jew-hating has been around a good chunk of time, since long before 1930s Germany, I don't think it's entirely gone.

And frankly, I don't care if it's still here, because now there's an Israel. But call a spade a spade.

[Gamblor]

[ThaSaltCracka]

there is plenty of things in your reply I find interesting.
But what about Europe, where old habits die hard, and parts of the Arab world, where dictators keep the public somewhere between the Bronze Age and Galileo?
and I always thought Europe was more prgressive and liberal than the rest of the world. Now I come to find out there a bunch of arrogant bigots. I don't know much about Europe but I find that very interesting.

Classic. Are you an idiot? No, I can't move on, first because half of my family disappeared, and second because what reason is there to believe it may not happen again?
When I said move on, what I mean is you(Jews) seem to hold the holocaust over the heads of everyone, as if it was our fault. It always has to be brought up and told, the pain and torture, the destruction, it was all terrible. However, I wasn't responsible for it, Modern day Germans weren't responislbe for it. This is the one thing that bothers me, and it boils down almost to racism. You dislike or fear someone based on what their forefathers did. You can't hold that against someone. That is one thing I think that separates blacks and whites in America. White people enslaved blacks in America, and that was a horrible thing, but I didn't do it, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it now. Why? because people should never be treated like that, ever. So my point, this is kind of a rant so sorry, is you can't hold someone accountable for what their predescessors did, thats not fair. You have to give someone another try, you have to believe that people will do the right thing.

Getting back to this movie, 99% of the people will leave this movie thinking Jews did not cause Jesus' death. The 1% that do, nothing will change their minds, and thats sad, but thats free will, and thats life. You can't always assume the worst, why not think of the positives? A lot of people who see this movie might find religion, some may not even choose christianity, some people may learn about Jesus' life, and IMHO nothing is wrong with that whether you are Jewish or Christian.

BTW your an idiot /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
one thing to keep in mind - Jesus Christ did not cause the suffering of Jewish People.

Nobody is saying he did.

But "the perverse use to which (the Gospels) were put" certainly has.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be condemning the people who misuse the Gospels rather than the Gospels themselves.

There is no evidence this movie is an abuse or misuse of the Gospels. That being the case, the attacks upon this movie appear more as an attack upon the Gospels themselves, than an attack on any misuse or abuse of them.

Stu

[Gamblor]

You should be condemning the people who misuse the Gospels rather than the Gospels themselves.

Agreed. I haven't condemned anyone. I have condemned actions. There's a difference.

Nonetheless, I understand how you can look at this analytically without attaching any "heart" to it.

Can you see how I unfortunately do not have such luxury and take these issues very, very, seriously?

[Gamblor]

and I always thought Europe was more prgressive and liberal than the rest of the world. Now I come to find out there a bunch of arrogant bigots. I don't know much about Europe but I find that very interesting.

More on Europe (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&amp;cid=1075114458901)

You might need to sign up for that - it's free and takes less than a minute.

When I said move on, what I mean is you(Jews) seem to hold the holocaust over the heads of everyone, as if it was our fault.

It's not your fault. Nuremburg and reparations are the only thing we can fairly expect. But at the very least, it is everyone's duty to understand that events like these do occur, not just to Jews, and they must be stopped before they get even close to that point. But forgive me if many Jews feel they have more of a vested interest in taking the slightest provocation extremely, extremely seriously.

You have to give someone another try, you have to believe that people will do the right thing.

As long as there are Jews outside of Israel, that is another try. There's no "them" or "us". It's everyone together.

Getting back to this movie, 99% of the people will leave this movie thinking Jews did not cause Jesus' death. The 1% that do, nothing will change their minds, and thats sad, but thats free will, and thats life.

Agreed - don't you think this movie has the potential to make someone who had no opinion on the issue (and people like this MUST exist) whatsoever to start researching? It's not long before he comes across some writings from Hutton Gibson or some shmuck like that. Then what?

A lot of people who see this movie might find religion, some may not even choose christianity, some people may learn about Jesus' life, and IMHO nothing is wrong with that whether you are Jewish or Christian.

Religion can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how gullible you are. I don't for one second believe Jesus actually walked on water, nor do I believe that Moses' staff turned into a snake.

But it's these metaphors that teach us the lessons we need to behave the way I think we ought to.

BTW, your an idiot

We all are, mostly for wasting our lives in front of computer screens and being so busy getting our point across that we don't even understand the opponent's.

[ThaSaltCracka]

It's not your fault. Nuremburg and reparations are the only thing we can fairly expect. But at the very least, it is everyone's duty to understand that events like these do occur, not just to Jews, and they must be stopped before they get even close to that point. But forgive me if many Jews feel they have more of a vested interest in taking the slightest provocation extremely, extremely seriously.
I agree, but how much reassurance do you need?

Agreed - don't you think this movie has the potential to make someone who had no opinion on the issue (and people like this MUST exist) whatsoever to start researching? It's not long before he comes across some writings from Hutton Gibson or some shmuck like that. Then what?
again its a movie, there are far more dangerous pieces of work out there, both literary and film that IMO are far far more danerous.

A lot of people who see this movie might find religion, some may not even choose christianity, some people may learn about Jesus' life, and IMHO nothing is wrong with that whether you are Jewish or Christian.
I was mostly tryin to allude to the way Jesus treated people and his philosphy, I wasn't neccesarily trying to say people will turn to religion.

BTW, your an idiot
BTW, you know I was joking right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

I find it very sad and disturbing that the very place where the Holocaust happened, there is still anti-semitism.
All though, I wonder if people are responding this way because they are tired of hearing about it, or if its from dislike of Jews.
Gamblor, I also found it interesting that many respondents said that the actions of the Israeli government has caused some of them to fell this way. What is your response to that? You can't possibly think the Israeli government is always right with its behavior, especially its behavior torward its neighbors.
Thoughts?

[bernie]

it hasnt totally been proven that it was real either. especially the resurrection part. you do know that much of the story of christ, predates christ?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be condemning the people who misuse the Gospels rather than the Gospels themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

the first people to misuse them are the church themselves. that's a great place to start. ever read on how and why the bible was put together the way it was? pretty interesting and pathetic.

b

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
this is from my man Bill O'Reilly

[/ QUOTE ]

"my man"? That guy is one of the biggest spin doctors around. That said, it was actually I pretty good review (though not of the movie really) I think and at least he eventually will admit when he's wrong (most of the time) which is more than I can say for a lot of partisan political commentators.

[Gamblor]

Read the Da Vinci Code. That'll knock your socks off (fiction as it is).

[Gamblor]

Criticize the Israeli government's actions all you like (I voted for Likud, mainly cause Sharon is a tough motherf*cker, and he won't sell the farm the way Barak and Rabin did).

That being said, how does the actions of a state change their opinions on people who do not live in the State, unless of course those opinions really existed in the first place?

In other words, just because the State of Israel does something they may object to, why do people who do not live in that state deserve the blame just because they share the same ethnicity?

Unless, of course, there was something fishy already there. Claiming Israel causes anti-semitism is a cop-out. Criticize Israel, but don't turn around and tell me about Jews' "special relationship with money" when I defend her actions.

On that note, how much criticism of Israel is rooted in that attitude? How do we tell the difference between legitimate academic criticism of Israeli policy and that criticism which is rooted in simple hatred of Jews and the idea of Jewish self-determination?

[bernie]

the initial story is fiction, however, the background is very much as possible as anything else that has been presented. AND it hasnt been proven wrong but very plausible.

read the story of Osiris and see if you recognize any of it. that may knock your toenails off.

b

[ThaSaltCracka]

In other words, just because the State of Israel does something they may object to, why do people who do not live in that state deserve the blame just because they share the same ethnicity?
not surprisingly you don't realize how many people feel about Israel. Israel is, please do not take offense, unique in that many people around the world associate it with Judaism, and the center of Judaism in the world. This may be unfair, in fact this is unfair, but thats how some people see it.

How do we tell the difference between legitimate academic criticism of Israeli policy and that criticism which is rooted in simple hatred of Jews and the idea of Jewish self-determination? I think most of it is based upon Israeli policy and not hatred of Jews. As I said earlier I think most people associate Israel with Jews, so ergo the actions of Israel reflects the thoughts of Jews. Now I know this isn't true, in fact it is plain silly, however I would bet lots of people think this way. I think this is why some of the Israeli governments strong tactics adversely affect Jews. Now, I don't want to discuss Israeli govts tactics mostly because I agree with them, and also based on what I have read from you, so please lets not go into that, I just want you to be aware that the actions of the Israeli government definitley affect peoples attitudes of Jews.

[baggins]

no, because the idea that there is such a thing as a Christian descent is ludicrous. Christianity is based on Faith. granted, you are more likely to be a follower of Christ if your family before you were believers. however, Christianity is something that crosses all genetic lines. There is actually NO logical sense to that. it IS ultimately ridiculous. and yes, I'd probably be arguing against such an argument.

however, I don't see the corollary. Are you saying there is a campaign against Jews being spear-headed by Mel Gibson's uneducated father? or the uneducated media? or Mel Gibson himself, through the vehicle that is this movie?

[baggins]

"Are you telling me, that after two thousand years of consistency, this kind of hatred disappears in sixty? Jew-hating has been around a good chunk of time, since long before 1930s Germany, I don't think it's entirely gone."

actually, I'd say that hatred in general has been around since the beginning of humanity. hatred in any form is wrong. but to raise the alarm about a movie that depicts a story that comes from the most widely read book in the world for almost 2000 years is a bit paranoid and alarmist, it seems. i mean, it's not like the story in the new testament gospels is a secret. the Jewish community has known about it forever... the story certainly doesn't imply anti-semitism. it implies guilt, and the need and opportunity for forgiveness, for all people. now, Jewish doctrine may not accept Jesus as The Christ, or Messiah, but that doesn't mean that the story of Jesus' Trial and Crucifixion is an anti-semitic one.

so many people preach acceptance. they say 'how can you claim the truth and condemn people who disagree with you?'. they want all conflicting elements of religious doctrine to be eradicated so we can all live in happy bubbles. but that's not how it works. I can disagree with you, I can believe in a Savior and a God that you don't, and have Faith in my relationship with my Creator, and my Faith can be in direct fundamental conflict with yours. that doesn't mean I can't love you, or that I should treat you with any less respect or humanity. that just means we won't agree. but somehow people can't deal with that. I'm somehow a bigot because I love and respect my neighbor - muslim, jew, protestant, catholic, atheist, deist, wiccan, satanist, buddhist, new ager, zoroastrianist, etc. but disagree with their fundamental tenets of faith?

that's the problem, as I see it.

[MMMMMM]

"Criticize the Israeli government's actions all you like (I voted for Likud, mainly cause Sharon is a tough motherf*cker, and he won't sell the farm the way Barak and Rabin did)."

My outside impressions are that Sharon is too soft, and that he is somewhat selling the farm. If I were an Israeli I'd probably prefer Netanyahu.

[Gamblor]

My outside impressions are that Sharon is too soft, and that he is somewhat selling the farm. If I were an Israeli I'd probably prefer Netanyahu.

Recently, Sharon has been trying to maintain his waning grip on power. In the face of a corruption scandal (in which he has only been implicated indirectly i.e. his son is the one who benefitted, not him) and mounting pressure in Israel to just end this god damn war, he has in the last two years:

1) labelled the Israeli presence in the territories, which under legal definition it is not. The definition of occupation requires another sovereign state to be occupied, which does not exist in the territores.

2) agreed to the US-brokered road map. I wonder what might happen if France were to demand the US adhere to a foreign plan to exit Iraq, or if the Russians/Spanish/British were forced to follow a foreign plan to make peace with the Chechens/Basques/Northern Irish.

3) Expelled Jews from the Gaza strip. Let's call a spade a spade - it's expulsion on the basis of religion, even if it lightens the load for the IDF and it is officially called "evacuation".

Pretty big compromises for a lifelong believer that the only way to establish self-determination is via strength. The Likud doctrine, from day one (as the Herut party) believed that the only way to earn respect and ensure a right to exist is via military strength. After all, all the apologies in the world are useless when you're dead.

Netanyahu is currently Minister of Finance and has begun to turn around the economy (finally) through increased privatization (to answer your longstanding question about socialism vs. capitalism, I haven't seen Israel under a capitalist economy, so I'm procrastinating an answer).

He is in that position mainly through a brilliant political move by Sharon - Sharon, in the middle of 2002, in the middle of war, invited Netanyahu to be deputy PM, thus turning Netanyahu into a selfish non-team-player if he refuses, and a second banana if he accepts. Netanyahu rejected the offer, ran for the Likud leadership (and thus PM nomination), and lost. I have a feeling he'll be back in the upcoming election - Sharon has worn out his welcome in too many places. Not for his policies, but for his my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

[Gamblor]

There is actually NO logical sense to that. it IS ultimately ridiculous. and yes, I'd probably be arguing against such an argument.

And what sense is there to the idea that Jews control the media, money, the government, that they are monkeys and pigs, and that they are cancers on civilized society, all charges that have been laid?

Why is the world all worked up about the Israeli fence, when the US, South Korea, Spain, and South Africa, among others, all have massive walls to keep out intruders?

Are you saying there is a campaign against Jews being spear-headed by Mel Gibson's uneducated father? or the uneducated media? or Mel Gibson himself, through the vehicle that is this movie?

There must be some people who believe Gibson's father.

[Chris Alger]

Israel murders kids to steal land every day while it builds a concentration camp for three million people. As these policies demolish any notions of Zionism-in-reality as a humanitarian enterprise, there's a big push to deny it. A centerpiece of the propaganda effort is a big new campaign by the Israel chauvanists to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, an old canard with new importance.

Ergo, anything that even reminds anyone of anti-Semtism is pure gold, even if it means arguing that the Gospel according to St. Matthew is politically incorrect. Gibson had the misfortune to release a film telling a very old, very conventional story at just the wrong time.

[ThaSaltCracka]

we were having a fairly intelligent debate about this film and anit-semitism. Why did you have to go ruin it Chris?
Gamblor, please don't respond to this, this is as dumb as that christianity line post you did.

[baggins]

there may be people who agree with Gibson's father, but they are idiots whether or not Mel Gibson pubilcly denounces his father's statements. Standing up to say that one person is so obviously wrong is not going to persuade anybody who already believes it.

[baggins]

"There is actually NO logical sense to that. it IS ultimately ridiculous. and yes, I'd probably be arguing against such an argument.

And what sense is there to the idea that Jews control the media, money, the government, that they are monkeys and pigs, and that they are cancers on civilized society, all charges that have been laid?

Why is the world all worked up about the Israeli fence, when the US, South Korea, Spain, and South Africa, among others, all have massive walls to keep out intruders?"

ok - I'll argue against it. Jews aren't the evil monsters that some people believe them to be. maybe some individual Jews, but certainly not based on their faith or heritage.

Christians aren't the evil monsters that some people believe us to be. maybe some individuals who claim the name of Christ to commit horrible, evil atrocities... but not ALL Christians should be judged on the actions of a few. nor should Christ be judged by the actions of a few.

[Gamblor]

[B-Man]

I believe the writer, James Carroll, is a Catholic Priest. This is from The Boston Globe.

===============================
JAMES CARROLL
An obscene portrayal of Christ's Passion
By James Carroll, 2/24/2004

"THE PASSION of The Christ" by Mel Gibson is an obscene movie. It will incite contempt for Jews. It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ. It is an icon of religious violence. Like many others, I anticipated the Gibson film warily, especially because an uncritical rendition of problematic Gospel texts which unfairly blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus threatened to resuscitate the old "Christ-killer" myth.

But seeing Gibson's film convinces me that it does far worse than that. His highly literal representation of the Passion narratives, his visual presentation of material that, in the tradition, is meant to be read and heard, together with his prejudiced selection of details and his invention of dialogue and incidents, cause one serious problem, very much at the expense of Jews.

But the impact of his perverse imagination on a sacred story, coming at a time when the world is newly riven with primal violence in the name of God, threatens an even more grievous problem. The subject of this film, despite its title, is not the Passion of the Christ, but the sick love of physical abuse, engaged in for power.

Jews as presented in this movie are overwhelmingly negative. Roman soldiers brutally execute Jesus, but Pontius Pilate is a good man, who stands in dramatic contrast to Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest. Going well beyond anything in the Gospels, Gibson's film emphasizes Roman virtue and Jewish venality by inventions like these:

Pilate's wife Claudia is an actual heroine, who aligns herself with Mary. Mary, terrified for her son, appeals to benign Romans against the hostile Jewish crowd.

Claudia is the woman behind the Romans. Her dramatic counterpart, the woman behind the Jews, is none other than a female Satan.

Pilate kindly offers Jesus a cup of water. Pilate orders Jesus flogged, but only to satisfy the Jewish bloodthirst.

The Jews are expressly indicted by the Good Thief, who, after the crucified Jesus says, "Father, forgive them . . . ," tells Caiaphas that "He prays for you." Jews are indicted by Jesus, who consoles Pilate by telling him, "It is he who has delivered me to you who has the greater sin."

The centerpiece of the film is a long sequence constructed around the flogging of Jesus. It is the most brutal film episode I have ever seen, approaching the pornographic. Just when the viewer thinks the flaying of the skin of Jesus can get no crueler, it does. Blood, flesh, bone, teeth, eyes, eye sockets, ribs, limbs -- the man is skinned alive, taken apart. In these endless moments, with the torturers escalating instruments and vehemence both, the film puts Gibson's decadent "Braveheart" imagination on full display.

On screen and in the theater, there is nothing to do but look away. Long after the filmgoer has had enough, even the Romans stop. And here is the anti-Semitic use to which this grotesque scene is put: Then Jesus is returned to the crowd of "the Jews," and then, as if they are indifferent to what the filmgoer has just been physically revolted by, "the Jews" demand the crucifixion of Jesus.

Not even the most savage carnage a filmgoer has ever seen is enough for these monsters. The scene, with the Jewish crowd overriding tender-hearted Pilate, is the most lethal in the Scriptures, but in Gibson's twist, "The Jews" are made to seem more evil than ever.

There is no resurrection in this film. A stone is rolled back, a zombie-Jesus is seen in profile for a second or two, and that's it. But there is a reason for this. In Gibson's theology, the resurrection has been rendered unnecessary by the infinite capacity of Jesus to withstand pain. Not the Risen Jesus, but the Survivor Jesus. Gibson's violence fantasies, as ingenious as perverse, are, at bottom, a fantasy of infinite male toughness.

The inflicting of suffering is the action of the film, and the dramatic question is: How much pain can Jesus take? The religious miracle of this Passion is that he can take it all. Jesus Christ Superstoic. His wondrous capacity to suffer is what converts bystander soldiers, and it is what saves the world.

In an act of perverse editing, Gibson has Jesus say, "I make all things new" as his torment approaches climax, as if cruel mayhem brings renewal. When Jesus cries out near the end, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" the film conveys not his despair, but his numb gratification. There's the film's inadvertent reversal, the crucifixion as a triumph of sadomasochistic exploitation. That triumph seems to be what Gibson's Jesus salutes when he says finally, "It is accomplished."

It is a lie. It is sick. Jews have every reason to be offended by "The Passion of The Christ." Even more so, if possible, do Christians.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

[nicky g]

last i checked the US fence wasn't in Mexico and the South Korean didn't dive North Korea in half.

[nicky g]

Some people here have said that Gibson has repudiated some of his father's views. OK. But I was under the impression that Gibson belgined to the same split-off faction of the Catholic church as his father - ie the one that rejects the second council (?) which removes any blame on the Jews for the death of Jesus - and that this was the main reason behind suspicions of antisemitism. Is this wrong - is he a member of the mainstream church?

[B-Man]

Nicky,

You were right--he belongs to the same cult as his father, who is a rabid holocaust denier.

[nicky g]

Thanks. In which case initially suspecting antisemitic undertones is neither unreasonable paranoia or blaming the sins of the father etc.

[Gamblor]

Would you care to explain to me where the State of Palestine is?

Furthermore, if you're not a racist (and I don't believe you are), then what collective identity to the "Palestinian Arabs" have, other than being members of the same race (Arab)? And are you claiming they have the inherent right to statehood, simply because they are all of the same race (Arab)? By treating all of the "Palestinian" Arabs as a collective you are racializing them: By assuming nationhood and statehood by virtue of shared race, you further the concept of race as a social status.

It amazes me how simple concepts like that are completely lost on the anti-Zionist propaganda machine. I don't believe you are a racist person, but I do believe your good nature (and mine, to some extent) leads you to be a little more trusting of the supposedly peace-loving left.

But let's save that for another discussion.

[MMMMMM]

I'll probably be seeing the movie in the next few days. Anyway, I read that the Pope saw the movie and said, "It is as it was." Quite a different view from Carroll.

If the Jews did do all (or most of) that, it's a historical fact (though Pilate and the Romans involved should share som,e blame too, IMO). But so what? The only problem with that fact (if fact it is) is that ignorant bigots seek to blame all Jews and today's Jews for what took place way back when. That's the problem: not the reporting and portrayal of historical fact (again, if it is indeed fact--and I suspect it largely is).

People who assign blame to entire large groups when only certain elements of those groups are culpable, are idiots. Dangerous idiots to be sure, but still idiots. I don't think concerns about what idiots may think should stand in the way of presentation of historical fact.

I'd also like to know on what grounds Carroll claims it is a lie, especially since, reportedly, the Pope said just the opposite. And somehow I suspect the Pope is a bit more studied than Father Carroll.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I'd also like to know on what grounds Carroll claims it is a lie, especially since, reportedly, the Pope said just the opposite. And somehow I suspect the Pope is a bit more studied than Father Carroll.
True, and as a Catholic, the Pope is infallable /images/graemlins/wink.gif, atleast to us....... supposedly /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I don't think concerns about what idiots may think should stand in the way of presentation of historical fact. very good point

People who assign blame to entire large groups when only certain elements of those groups are culpable, are idiots. Dangerous idiots to be sure, but still idiots.
another good point.

BTW has anyone else seen this movie yet? I will in the next couple of days, but I know it came out today. Any other reviews??

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd also like to know on what grounds Carroll claims it is a lie, especially since, reportedly, the Pope said just the opposite. And somehow I suspect the Pope is a bit more studied than Father Carroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on MMMMMM, the Pope is about 150 years old and completely senile. I'd put a lot more credence in anything Carroll says than anything the Pope says. I have no idea who is more studied, but I have no reason to believe it is the Pope. And even if it is the Pope, I do not believe he is of sound mind.

[MMMMMM]

Well I still would like to know on what grounds Carroll claims it is a lie.

BTW, on 9/2/03 Carroll wrote an opinion piece saying the war in Iraq was lost. I'm not too impressed with either of his two columns I have read thus far.

[Chris Alger]

According to ADL national director Abraham Foxman, in his recent book The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, "anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hartred." Foxman expands this nonsensical claim to include the lion's share of Israeli policy criticism, ostensibly even from Zionists: "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about the policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about the Jews." This means, of course, that all "most" of the perrenial complaints about human rights and occupation, no matter how well documented or proven, are groundless on their face because they amount to no more than group defamation. The hoary old propaganda trick of trying to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism is the thesis of no less than four books, including Foxman's, that have emerged in the last six months, three of which include the term "new anti-Semitism" in their title.

Mr. Foxman has condemned (http://www.seethepassion.com/article.php?id=165) the film in the context of his vision of a "new" anti-Semitism: "The movie blames bloodthirsty Jews for Jesus' death. And this during a time of a rise of global anti-Semitism."

[MMMMMM]

From what I've read elsewhere, I think Foxman is overreacting to the movie. From your post it seems he may be overreacting in a broader sense as well (although this is the first I've heard of it).

Let's have the historical truth (to the extent we can obtain it), not the "politically correct historical truth".

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
The subject of this film, despite its title, is not the Passion of the Christ, but the sick love of physical abuse, engaged in for power.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'Passion,' from the Greek pathos, meaning 'to suffer.' Not as in the typical definition of passion. To refer to this stage of Jesus' life as 'The Passion' is common Christian tradition.

[ QUOTE ]
Jews as presented in this movie are overwhelmingly negative.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is simply not true. Watch the movie and you will see many heroic Jews, including Simon (who helped Jesus carry the cross), Mary, Mary Magdalene, and many others. To see only negative portrayals of Jews is what my mother calls 'selective seeing.'

[ QUOTE ]
...but Pontius Pilate is a good man

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when can somebody who sentances someone he knows to be innocent to die of crucifixion be considered good? If you listen to the reason Pontius Pilate gives for being hesitant to sentance Jesus it has nothing to do with his innocence. It is because he fears an uprising, and Caesar had already warned him that if that happens again it is the end of him.

[ QUOTE ]
...the woman behind the Jews, is none other than a female Satan.

[/ QUOTE ]
What movie did you watch? If you want to label the 'woman behind the Jews, it is CERTAINLY Mary, who is shown throughout the whole movie, and exemplifies love and compassion.

[ QUOTE ]
The centerpiece of the film is a long sequence constructed around the flogging of Jesus. It is the most brutal film episode I have ever seen, approaching the pornographic. Just when the viewer thinks the flaying of the skin of Jesus can get no crueler, it does. Blood, flesh, bone, teeth, eyes, eye sockets, ribs, limbs -- the man is skinned alive, taken apart. In these endless moments, with the torturers escalating instruments and vehemence both, the film puts Gibson's decadent "Braveheart" imagination on full display.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very true. The movie is relentlessly brutal. Although I am at a loss for how pornography found its way into your comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no resurrection in this film. A stone is rolled back, a zombie-Jesus is seen in profile for a second or two, and that's it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, Jesus looks very much alive and you actually see him stand up and walk. I don't know anybody else who thought he looked like a zombie. (It is true that the resurrection is not emphasized highly in this film.)

[ QUOTE ]
In Gibson's theology, the resurrection has been rendered unnecessary by the infinite capacity of Jesus to withstand pain. Not the Risen Jesus, but the Survivor Jesus. Gibson's violence fantasies, as ingenious as perverse, are, at bottom, a fantasy of infinite male toughness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're searching. I think with a little more effort you could be a smidgen farther off base.

[ QUOTE ]
When Jesus cries out near the end, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" the film conveys not his despair, but his numb gratification.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Numb gratification? Again, you're searching.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a lie. It is sick. Jews have every reason to be offended by "The Passion of The Christ." Even more so, if possible, do Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're off base again here. I have several Jewish friends who have seen the movie, and not one found it offensive. But then again, these are rational people I'm talking about. They accept the fact that some Jews have done some pretty horrible things in the past - the same way I accept some Christians (well, some is an understatement) have done horrible things in the past. That doesn't mean that all Jews or all Christians are evil if we accept the truth of those occaisions. (Nor does it mean that the nation of Islam is a bunch of evil heathens simply because of the terrorist organizations that act in the name of Allah.)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably be seeing the movie in the next few days. Anyway, I read that the Pope saw the movie and said, "It is as it was."

[/ QUOTE ]

This has since been discredited. The pope's spokesman said that it wasn't true.

[MMMMMM]

Yes but other sources say the spokesman covered it up after the fact for political reasons. So I don't consider it "discredited" but rather still open. Actually I read more to make me think the Pope really said it than that he didn't. Sorry I don't archive every link I read.

[Gamblor]

Criticism of Israeli policy is NOT anti-semitic. Anti-Zionism is indeed anti-semitic, as it singles out Jews for no right to self determination.

To try to separate the two is ludicrous and the basis of your flawed argument. That you do not have any overt philosophical problem and that you do not post scathing indictments of, say, Saudi Arabia, which is strictly and explicitly theocratic and Muslim, shows your specific bias against the State of Israel, but more importantly, the Jewish State. After all as long as the Jews shut up and sit in the corner, you are okay - but when Jews assert themselves, when they begin to demand self-determination and a voice to represent themselves on the world stage, you shout and kick and scream.

Only the Jews cannot be a majority in a democratic state!

A group of people cannot be sovereign by virtue of shared race, as you claim. A group of people is sovereign by virtue of having a democratic government which enables it to express itself. Only in racialist Algerian discourse does a group purely by race (Arab, in this case) earn self-determination rights. Or perhaps you'd care to tell me about "Palestinian" history before the mid-20th century.

This means, of course, that all "most" of the perrenial complaints about human rights and occupation, no matter how well documented or proven, are groundless on their face because they amount to no more than group defamation.

"No matter how well documented or proven" must include little-to-none.

Your campaign to demonize is once again based on twisting and ignoring the fundamental facts:

1) The Arab-Israeli conflict's roots lie with Arab belligerence toward Jewish immigration and presence in British Mandate Palestine. Whether or not Jews came to colonize, their means of "colonization" were the finances and donations collected abroad with which to purchase Arab-owned land; the early Jewish refugees were without weaponry. It is the Arab side that initiated violent conflict, and the Arab side that rejected Jewish immigration to the region.

2) Arab nations, regardless of negotiation status, have consistently and irrationally refused to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East. A few kilometers of territory is irrelevant, and certainly not a basis for determining the right of people to live in a certain area. No Americans question the right of Saudi Arabia to exist despite its non-democratic and theological kingdom. Neither does Israel. It is Israel that is expected to negotiate and make sacrifices simply for recognition, which is clear will never come. Israel should long ago have given up - but the State has long proven peace is its primary goal after security. How many times will Israel try to appease the bullies, who have hundreds of times the population and many times the finances in oil reserves? That most of Israel's GDP is spent on defense is not a function of aggression - it is a function of foreign belligerence.

3) Grouping all Arab sides together is not racism, it is statement of fact - That States as far away as Iraq, Iran, attacked Israel in 1948 (and 1991), while Israel posed no strategic or territorial threat to Iraq's sovereignty and initiated no political strife between the nations, betrays the Arabs as a team, all working together to achieve Israel's demise. Yes, this is Arabs against Jews, and any other way of looking at it is to minimize the racist imperialist anti-semitism that permeates the entire Arab world.

4) All Arab nations (ALL) are not democratic, and not transparent and as such, have the ability to manipulate history to the whims of those in charge. Given the intense hatred of all things Israel, this makes it very easy to convince the more gullible among us that Israel is the evil occupier and the poor defenseless Palestinians are the victims, when it is Arafat's henchmen and the rest of the society that supports the explicit murder of unarmed combatants. As far as Israeli "racist murders" go, if the Bedouin and Druze Arabs are willing and able to serve in the army, there can't be much racism or anti-Arabism in the ideology. I await the day the Arab-Muslim nations of the Middle east eventually join transparent government philosophy of the 21st century, and open up their archives. You, Chris Alger, will be quite the fool.

But of course. You know more than those who live there. You know more than those who have fought there. You know more than anyone. Keep fighting and defending them. It's getting kind of funny.

[Gamblor]

Iran has never attacked Israel via military means.

Iran still refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, while Israel recognizes the right of every Arab state to exist as it is.

[MMMMMM]

Ever the double-standard. Why the more informed people and developed nations in the world don't tell the double-standard bearers to cut the f*ckin' crap, is beyond me.

[nicky g]

...but presently recognises no rights to self-determination for the Palestinians at all.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Anti-Zionism is indeed anti-semitic, as it singles out Jews for no right to self determination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly, because this merely selects the most general and softest definition of "Zionism" while ignoring the claims of Zionists-in-reality: the right to displace and oppress. But at least you're acknowledging that denying groups the right of self-determination, as you do for Palestinian Arabs, is racist. Hi racist.

[ QUOTE ]
That you do not have any overt philosophical problem and that you do not post scathing indictments of, say, Saudi Arabia, which is strictly and explicitly theocratic and Muslim, shows your specific bias against the State of Israel, but more importantly, the Jewish State.

[/ QUOTE ]
My severe "philosophical problem" with Saudi Arabia (about which I've posted) makes this false as a fact, but taken to it's conclusion this argument is absurd. If one can't criticize Israel without criticizing Saudi Arabia, then one cannot criticize Israel or indeed any country without criticizing all other deficient states, or indeed all other political crimes and failings. Since this is impracticable, all it means is that one can ever really criticize Israel without being antiSemitic, which nullifies your assertion that criticizing Israel is not antiSemitic. This self-contradictory line is essentially the same as Foxman's: since only an idiot thinks that Israel is above all criticism, we can't say this explicitly but must go through the backdoor to arrive at the same result. In his formulation, Israel can be criticized, but "Zionism" can't be, and "most" criticism of Israeli policy really amounts to condemning Jews of all countries as a group.

To things make Israel an especially deserving recipient of criticism: (1) my country gives more aid to Israel, particularly the lethal aid necessary for Israel's crimes, than any other country and indeed most continents in the world. Greater responsibility for evil means greater responsibility for correcting it. This is a simple moral truism that those claiming Israel is "singled out" unfairly refuse to acknowledge. Second, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel is resolutely defended from nearly all quarters in the U.S., official and private. It is regarded by many as a mere "haven" for persecuted Jewry and its abominable human rights record, again unlike that of Saudi Arabia's, is generally ignored or lied about.

[ QUOTE ]
Only the Jews cannot be a majority in a democratic state!

[/ QUOTE ]
Another fine argument that would apply equally if Kurds invaded a territory from which they were dispossed thousands of years ago by a long-ago empire, displaced and enslaved the locals, and declared themselves an ethnocentric "democracy." Only the Kurds cannot ...!

[ QUOTE ]
A group of people cannot be sovereign by virtue of shared race, as you claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since I claim there is no such thing as race, only racism (ethnic or cultural stereotyping, defamation, etc.), this is more nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
Or perhaps you'd care to tell me about "Palestinian" history before the mid-20th century

[/ QUOTE ]
There's an extensive literature, but claim that Palestinians don't qualify as a "nation" is particularly foolish coming from a Zionist perspective as Jews of the 19th century possessed none fo the three attributes most commonly used to define "nations": geographic proximity, a common spoken language and a common culture. The more generous definition of "nation" that most of the world (me too) has conferred upon Jewry finds no reciprocation among hard-line Zionists like you, revealing the ideology to me grounded more in a "master race" theory than one of "national self-determination."

[ QUOTE ]
The Arab-Israeli conflict's roots lie with Arab belligerence toward Jewish immigration and presence in British Mandate Palestine.

[/ QUOTE ]
The mere "immigrants" made no secret of their plans to colonize all Palestine and either subjugate or drive the Arabs out. (Actually, they did try to keep it a secret, but when the Palestinians noticed, among other things, Yisuv fundraising brochures showing a Star of David flag flying above the holiest sites, they got wise). Your insistence that the ideology of Zionist conquest arose only as a defense to Arab violence is another example of your tendency to pretend away the facts.

So what you really mean is that, alone among nations, Palestinian Arabs have no right to limit immigration or defend against colonial conquest. Consider the absurdity of this argument when contrasted against the arguments against allowing many or even any displaced Palestinians to return: it would tend to dilute Israel's ethnic purity and endanger it's "right" to remain ethnocentric.
[ QUOTE ]
Arab nations, regardless of negotiation status, have consistently and irrationally refused to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]
An desperate and appalling lie, especially after the Arab Summit resolution, approved by 10 Arab states, that all Arab countries recognize Israel (denounced in Israel as no different than another Saudi initiative of the 1970's). Arab governments were ready and willing to recognize Israel as early as 1949, if only Israel would fix the refugee progblem it created and provide for Palestinian national rights. Israeli, not Arab rejectionism, is the central cause of this conflict.

[ QUOTE ]
Grouping all Arab sides together is not racism, it is statement of fact - That States as far away as Iraq, Iran, attacked Israel in 1948 (and 1991)...

[/ QUOTE ]
Iran isn't an "Arab" country, did not "attack" Israel in 1948 or 1991, and if it had done so in 1991 it would have been with arms that Israel sold it. Why don't you go read a nice book so you won't be ignorant?

[Gamblor]

but presently recognises no rights to self-determination for the Palestinians at all.

Israel recognizes fully the rights of self-determination of all people, Arabs included.

But the use of terrorism cannot be rewarded in any manner.

[nicky g]

"Arabs included"
What, as a whole? What about Palestinians on Palestinian land? It doesn't in practice even their right to property, life or limb, never mind to their own resources, freedom of movement or anything that goes with self-determination. The terrorism excues is a canard: for three years before the present intifada not a single Israeli was killed within Israel's borders by Palestinian terrorism (the same can't be said for Palestinians by Israeli terrorism), and yet what happened? More settlements were built and more Palestinians were dispossessed. Dozens of Palestinians died before the first Israeli was murdered in the intifada; yet it's all in response to Palestinian terrorism?

[Gamblor]

What about Palestinians on Palestinian land?

What is Palestinian land?

Stop assuming a Palestinian state, because it doesn't exist. Being of the same race does NOT make you a state.

Israeli terrorism is cheap rhetoric and no Israeli actions fit the definition of terrorism: violence against civilians to achieve political goals. No Arab cities have been uprooted to make way for Jewish cities. Arab houses are demolished when one of two conditions are met: 1) the house is used by/for Arabs who have commited violent crimes against Israelis or the Israeli army. Jewish villages are built outside present day Arab villages.

Arab terrorism began long before September 2000. Beginning with the massacres in Marrakesh, Morocco and across the middle east in the mid-late 19th century, Arab riots of the 1920s and massacres at Hevron in 1929 and Gush Emunim, as well as Entebbe, the Munich Olympics, and the Arab fedayeen militia.

Why does every prisoner exchange end the same as 400 Arabs released in exchange for 3 dead bodies?

Because Palestinian groups take no prisoners. They are vicious and vile, bent only on murder.

Lies have no place in civilized discussion.