I’m not “pissed off” at you at all! And I’m not telling you what to think, either. I’m sorry if I came across as either (and was frankly somewhat upset by your tone - I really didn’t want to get into an argument; but maybe I should be upset with myself for touching a raw nerve :(). I was curious as to why - in what looks to me like a clear-cut case of avoiding a simple question - you do seem intent on giving the guy so much benefit of doubt.
Your answer -
is good enough for me. Your opinion. You’re entitled to it. Maybe I’m just more cynical and more worried about well-intentioned people not taking possible bigots to task - because maybe we misunderstood them - until it is too late. Just my own opinion - YMMV
I ‘m sorry if it came off that way; I’m not pissed off at you at all, nor did I think you were at me. You weren’t at all the person I was talking about. I should know better by now than to write on such a touchy subject when it’s long past my normal lunchtime. No hard feelings, OK?
I said it was not and gave my reasons why in my opinion it was not.
The key word is “allegedly”.
Furhter I said already that Christians are well aware of it by now that the “Jews killed Jesus” has no link to “all Jews are bad” (try for example to read my posts).
And once again: Tell me please how it can happen that some people start screaming “anti Semitism” about a stupid movie that claims to “follow the Bible” before said movie is even released and on top of that can manage that their complaints are taken serious?
You can call “slanderous fantasy” as much as you want whatever you want.
The reality is what I wrote in my post as quoted here under:
Hence the existing reality that the link is made between the abuse of the Holocaust for political goals and this new wild cry about “anti Semitism” even long before the stupid movie is even released.
If you like it or not, this is reality.
If you want it or not, the link is made in the minds of the people who hear now already for years Jews of all sorts scream about “anti Semitism” with or without reason and thereby make a link to the Holocaust as the most blatant example of persecution. Not to mention the minor event of the creation of Israel itself; or do you believe it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
See above.
In addition: Your debates are definitely other debates then mine and your information comes from other sources then mine because of obvious circumstances.
Please give me the link to where I said that Israel should be wiped off the globe? Thank you.
Please give me the link to where I said that Jews have nothing to complain about when it comes to talk about persecution and racism and hate crimes? Thank you.
However, I do have the opinion that whenever a state for the Jewish people had come to existence it should have been set up with much more care. To me there is indeed no “biblical right” whatsoever for Israel to be located where it is now. It could be located anywhere else and there were other ideas, actually.
Once again: Please provide me for a proof that a stupid movie that isn’t even released contains “Christ-killer slur” while it claims to follow the Bible.
So to you the Bible contains “Christ killer slur”.
OK, no problem to me.
Explain then what difference it makes that this same story is put in a movie.
Why don’t you claim that the Bible should be condemned for containing just the same “Christ-killer slur”.
What about the Passions of Bach with their “Christ killer slur”.
What about The Messiah of Händel.
What on earth is so different about the same well known story being pictured in a stupid movie.
You failed to answer these questions before so I don’t expect an answer now.
Please give me a link to where I said that attacking/killing civilians is “an extension of this conflict”. Thank you.
While you are busy, please give me also a link to where I said that I ever saw a broadcasting of those “protocols”.
I said I did not and in addition said that it doesn’t have my interest at all.
While you are at it, please provide for a link to where I said that if this sillyness is broadcasted, I applaud the bigoted stupidity. Thank you.
Question:
If you can’t provide for all the links I ask you for to prove your wild accusations and assertions, then what on earth are you talking about ?
Is it something in your mind that links “Muslim” to “Jew hater” or is it something in your mind that links my member name on this website to the same?
I only reply to you because I want to pretend I didn’t read this a second time.
The same to you.
However, next time you end a post with once again an attempt to insult, you shall get no reply from me. I’m sorry, but answering such isn’t worth my time and effort.
“The hood of (NASCAR driver Bobby) Labonte’s car is a shameless movie plug - The Passion of the Christ, coming soon to a theater near you - and new-style proselytizing for the Gospel…
“It’s a chance to get the word out,” Labonte says about the ad on his car. “Someone who is curious about Jesus and has never been saved sees the race and says ‘Hmmmm, I’d like to see what that’s about’… Maybe we can change their minds.”…
“Walking through the garage, yes, I’m unashamed about being a Christian,” says Dale Beaver, a chaplain for Motor Racing Outreach…If you’re not a Christian, that’s OK. We can still get along.”
I’ve followed this thread for all four pages, and I think I found the failure in communication.
The first part (that I’m covering, not chronologically) is
While many Christians are aware that the statement “Jews killed Jesus” does not equal “all Jews are bad,” others do. You do not, and perhaps many of your friends and associates do not. However, for many centuries, Christians of all stripes did indeed equate these things, and caused massive persecutions. I’m not talking about Nazi Germany, which was its own brand of evil, but things like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, blood libels (which started being about lies of Jews using the blood of Christian children in Matza, but managed to spill over to “Christ-killers, kill them all!”), and countless pogroms throughout all of Christian Europe.
The fear is that, even though it is still sight-unseen, many Jews are afraid that the “Christ-killer” sentiment, while obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament, is going to convince the Christians who DO equate “Jews are Christ-killers” with “All Jews are bad” to fall back into ancient behavior patterns.
The fact that many Christians stopped thinking like this doesn’t mean that Jews are not wary that some Christians have not stopped thinking like this. It is fear of that “some” who might insight violence, as the passion plays have done historically.
I don’t know if you are aware, but there is a chunk of the Jewish calendar set aside for mourning that starts after the first day of Passover until (for various sets of countings) the beginning of the Jewish month that incorporates the holiday of Shavuot, or Pentecost. The mourning is over serious death tolls throughout history where the murderers were inflamed by the Passion Plays over Easter (which usually falls out near and about Passover. Some of the most vicious Crusade massacres happened following the Easter Passion Plays.
While you may feel that this type of thing is ancient history, many Jews are not so willing to put these incidents “behind us” in the past. While you may be right, and perhaps not many Christians will take the Passion Play seriously, the various and sundry bits of Mel Gibson’s movie that was seen are indeed graphic. It is that graphicness (true, we haven’t seen the whole, so it may be better, but we’re focusing on the negative parts that HAVE been seen so far) that Jews are afraid of. The serious anti-Jesus bent to the last gory detail of torture and death of Jesus is what historically has sent the x=y Christians into a frenzy in the past. It is not illogical that some people with long memories are wary that it may happen again.
You may be convinced that enough Christians are emotionally happy to separate the two statements that this movie won’t make a difference. Maybe you are right. I pray that you are right. However, it is not illogical for many Jews to fear “What if not enough Christians separate the two prior statements, and come for us?”
I think the other failure to communicate is someone (I’m not sure who) equated anti-Semitism (which, unfortunately, is alive and kicking) with milking the Holocaust for what it is worth. It bugs me that some politicians are labelled anti-Semites for one stupid sentence they might have made a long time ago, and the positions they hold have nothing to do with that statement.
However, not all fear of anti-Semitism is tied to “the Holocaust happened - feel sorry for me, because I am a victim!”-type sentiments. That type of thinking annoys me too, and for the longest time, I refused to learn anything about the Holocaust, because I hated seeing stuff that seemed trite and accusatory, when the actuality was much deeper than it was being presented. Not everything tied to understanding the Holocaust is victimology.
People who fear the impact of the movie are not being obnoxious and trite. (At least, the people I know who fear it.) People are afraid of Crusades Part II, from people who cannot separate the idea “Jews killed Christ” from “All Jews are evil.”
It may feel overboard and unnecessary to you. As I said before, I pray you are correct.
Question: “Tell me please what the relevance to that specific there is to the early rant about how Jews “abuse” the Holocaust for political purposes (?!), if not to state that Jewish concerns about antisemitism should be dismissed in general because Jews always “scream” antisemitism? What exactly does your slanderous fantasy about Jewish abuse of the Holocaust have to do with concerns of this particular movie and whether or not they have any just cause?”
Answer: “the link is made between the abuse of the Holocaust for political goals and this new wild cry about ‘anti Semitism’ even long before the stupid movie is even released.”
Put simply, yes, because Alde says Jews abuse the Holocaust, any concern about antisemitism is wild. And as the next answer illustrates, abusing the Holocaust is defined as expressing concern about antisemitism in any form, because people “make a link” so therefore concern over this movie is abusing the Holocaust.
Question: “please give some examples of what you precisely mean by that offensive statement about Jews abusing the Holocaust for political ends? Are you referencing over fifty years ago when the Holocaust was part of the justification for European acquiesence to a partition plan? Because honestly, I hardly ever hear about the Holocaust in particular mentioned in debates currently about Israel other than used by antisemites making slurs about Zionist being Nazis. Or do you reference people like me, who when discussing why I believe that Israel needs to exist for the sake of Jews all over the world will discuss the long, repetitive, horrific history of antisemitism (including HaShoah) as explanation for why many of us Jews are less than willing to just trust ourselves to the world’s good graces? Am I engaged in ‘cheap PR’ that makes you 'want to vomit when I explain why I feel the way I do?”
Answer:“the link is made in the minds of the people who hear now already for years Jews of all sorts scream about ‘anti Semitism’ with or without reason and thereby make a link to the Holocaust as the most blatant example of persecution. Not to mention the minor event of the creation of Israel itself; or do you believe it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.”
In other words you have no examples to offer of Jews abusing the Holocaust for political purposes other than the perverse mentality that any concern of antisemitism is going to cause a link in peoples minds to the Holocaust so therefore any expressed concern of antisemitism is abusing the memory of the holocaust. Except maybe the specific of over fifty years ago. Your bolding “reality” doesn’t change your slander for what it is: "A Big Lie."
Question: “what actions or statements would you believe cross the line into antisemitism? The Christ-killer slur doesn’t do it, obviously. Does bombing of Temples in Europe by angry Arabs cross the line? Or is that just an understandable extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Does broadcast of The Protocals of Zion by state sponsored media in Arab countries cross the line? Where do you draw it?”
Answer: None that addressed the questions.
As to your questions about the movie and my thoughts about it, I refer you to my first and repeated statement about it:
I stand by it.
Your position is clear: Jewish concerns (“screams”) about antisemitism equal abuse of the Holocaust equal cheap PR to support Israel. Repeating a “Big Lie” frequently and bolding the word “reality” will make it believable.
Mel now claims his wife is probably going to Hell because she is not Catholic.
“Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
I actually (and surprisingly) pretty much agree with Jackmanii’s last post. But what I don’t understand is how he can reconcile a “no” answer to #2 with the belief that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite. Unless you’re taking into consideration information not presented in this thread, I think that’s all he’s doing.
I think it’s because of the peculiar way Mel chose to answer the Holocaust question. One claim that seems to fall under the ‘denial’ umbrella is that there were atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, some of them against Jews, but that the number of total dead accepted by history is a Jewish fabrication.
Of course, I have never stated that I think Mel is an anti-Semite.
What I suggested what that his response to the interviewer’s question, given the context in which it was presented, was evasive and offensive, falling into the category of Holocaust minimization. I think ol’ Mel is at the minimum a jerk, and I suspect based on his upbringing and the way he’s handled the movie controversy and the Noonan interview that he harbors anti-Semitic attitudes. But that’s as far as I can go with it.*
The Holocaust has variable importance to people based on their heritage and historical perspective. If you view it as of lesser importance compared to me, I am not going to call you an anti-Semite. It’s how you choose to handle your beliefs that matters.
*For those desiring Laboratory Proof that Mel Gibson’s comments constituted an ethnic slur, and that lacking such proof his benevolent intentions should be assumed - I am reminded of a scene in Herman Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny, where the Jewish fighter pilot turned defense attorney for the mutineers, is talking about his perceptions that the court-martial judge doesn’t like Jews. He says “I have absolute pitch for those harmonies.”
In Mel’s case, I weigh the factors I previously mentioned and my relative pitch for these matters, based on life experience (I don’t claim to have perfect pitch). And I hear sour notes.
I gave a direct answer to Dog80, and have now clarified it. I don’t mind giving direct answers.
What has me concerned with Mel & the Holocaust is a simple declaration of facts:
a) Hutton Gibson, Mel’s father, has publicly denied that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.
b) Mel has publicly stated that his father “never lied to me in his life.”
c) When asked if the Holocaust happened, Mel made a statement which was ambiguous on the fact that 6 million died.
A better question to ask him is “Do you believe 6 million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany?” That would be a much more pressing question. He can still believe in a Holocaust of 10,000 Jews, or a Holocaust of a million Romani, without accepting the historical fact of the Jewish Holocaust of 6 million.
The man can believe whatever he wants. We, as a free market, are under no obligation to pay money to watch him. Simple enough – if you are concerned, don’t watch his movies.
Now to the OP. My view, as an atheist Jew. Vatican II was the chance for the Roman Catholic Church to do some painful introspection, which led to striking reforms. Obviously many changes were made; some of this was precipitated by what happened in WWII. Pope John XXII took huge strides to address and correct the indirect and direct roles the Church had in the Jewish Holocaust: over a thousand years of Passion Plays, Crusades, blood libels, etc, all coming to a head in the Holocaust.
It was admirable what the Church did in Vatican II – they reanalyzed the Gospels and came away with the conclusion that a lot of false blame had been put on the Jews throughout European history. Changes were made in the Liturgy to specifically correct these problems. They specifically apologized and changed their ways.
Well, Gibson and father are traditionalists who like their Mass in Latin and don’t accept the reforms of Vatican II. While it is not certain, I would say that it is quite probable that Hutton Gibson (with his publicly stated beliefs) has at least a stripe of antisemitism in him. He shaped Mel, and Mel shaped this movie. Are the reforms of Vatican II evident in this movie? I suspect that they won’t be.
I have no interest in watching this movie – I have no interest in watching Passion Plays either. But many of the advanced reviews bear out my suspicions – the reforms of Vatican II are not reflected. The RCC has come out and admitted that its pre-Vatican II practices were antisemitic. I don’t think it is a stretch to then judge this movie by the same standard.
I’m surprised this Newsweek article has not been linked yet. I think it is a relatively fair appraisal.
I do hope you don’t believe that the crusades and the inquisition were events with as explicit target the persecution of Jews?
The progroms were, but as with everything in history there are several causes and intertwined circumstances that prepared for the background and provoked the forum on which these events could happen.
Why on earth should a stupid movie create such a situation in a country like the USA when daily reading of the NT by millions of Christians can’t.
I’m sorry, but “some” can’t start a renewal of the historical situation of a whole people.
If you want examples of “some”, then take a look at what “some” did to Muslim (or perceived as Muslim) US citizens after the 9/11 events.
Next, take a look at the hundreds of Muslims that were locked up without any charge against them at the order of the government.
In your case you have
the protection of the US laws
the protection of your history which is very well reminded on a continued base to anyone who follows some decent education.
Yes I know about the remembrance, which is a very honourable thing to do.
But please don’t make the stretch that the crusaders needed a sort of organized Passion plays among the soldiers for getting off on butchering Jews.
The massacre of Jews and Christians was a side effect and not the first goal of these events which were - officially - aimed at butchering Muslims on the way to “free Jerusalem”.
The crusades form a complicated issue in history and this shouldn’t be approached lightly and with a nonchalant coloured brush.
As historian I actually studied - and study - on the past.
Those details are well described in the OT.
I simply fail to understand how sane people can come to the conviciton that a stupid movie - telling what is known by every Christian and even by so many non-Christians - could ever provoke a massive and dangerous negative reaction towards the Jewish people.
I can understand a sense of unease with a movie about a subject that brings historical events back to your memory.
I fail to understand the " what if they come for us".
I’m sorry, but do you seriously think that a stupid movie can have such an impact on people’s mind that they forget their education, their sanity and their countries laws and start a progrom like in “the good old days”? I think it is rather safe to suppose that a majority of those people don’t even know what happened during those progroms. Many probably don’t know the word, let be the meaning,let be the history and where it happened.
Let’s take an other angle again:
Since decades there is in the US a tendency to portray Muslims and especially Arab Muslims in the most sterotypical and the most vile and graphically bloody filmroles. They kill innocents, they form a conspiracy to kill a president, they threaten the USA, they abduct and beat women. Whatever.
This had - and still has - its influence on the forming of a general impression among some type of US’ers and Western people in general, that all Muslims and especially Arabs are out on butchering and terrorizing and hijacking and beating women and whatever.
But there was still an event like 9/11 needed for a situation we could eventually describe as “to come for us”.
Are you claiming that a stupid movie is able to provoke an effect as the aftermath of 9/11 towards Muslims and those perceived as Muslims, but now aimed towards the Jews?
And don’t forget by this that for the amount of people who “came for the Muslims” there was an amount of people who countered this reaction offering help and protecting to Muslims.
Are you really saying that it is your conviction that Jews are hated all over the USA and that nobody, not even the government, shall lift a finger if ever by some bad miracle your doom scenario would become reality?
I’ve been trying it for the past 4 pages, but apparently I cannot formulate an answer direct enough to get through to you. I think everyone else here understands me, even if they disagree, so unfortunately I think you will be left out in the cold on this one. (If you don’t, everyone else, please indicate, and I’ll try again.) However, at the moment, Jackmanii,* I am unwilling to expend any more energy, either mental or emotional, responding to your snide remarks.
No, but the cry “anti- semitism” about a not-released movie is once again an open invitation to link this premature accusation to certain abuse that is made of the holocaust.
That feeling is very much alive in the EU countries where I happen to come frequently. And I’m sorry, but it doesn’t provoke any sympathy at all because of the prematurity of the claim which in fact contains an abuse of the term “anti semitism”.
I’m sorry, but why you make a link between a movie production and these historical events, aimed at the conquering of Jerusalem on the Muslims, goes beyond my comprehension.
You make it sound as it they were organized with the explicit aim to massacre the Jews.
By the way: your " crusades part II" is also a bit outdated, but going further on this issue would hijack the thread.
In any case: May I thank you for the effort you made to actually read my posts in this hread and making the effort to try to understand what I wanted to bring across.
As it isn’t that easy for me to write in this language, it mustn’t be easy for others to decipher what I write.
As you certainly have noticed: This can provoke sometimes sort of clashes between other members an myself.
Salaam. A
Eva,
Since I am being asked … What I do not understand is why you are so persistent in not acknowledging the additional information that has been brought to your attention and re-evaluating your belief about Mel’s statement in face of it. Once the context had been pointed out to you (that Mel’s Dad has publically claimed that Jews have grossly exaggerated the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust, that Mel has said Dad never lied to him when referencing this subject, and that the straight up question was answered in a way that avoided conflicting with Daddy’s statements) then the refusal to acknowledge that Mel’s statement comes off as intentional minimization makes you seem, well, just obstinate.
I’m not “pissed off” at you at all! And I’m not telling you what to think, either. I’m sorry if I came across as either (and was frankly somewhat upset by your tone - I really didn’t want to get into an argument; but maybe I should be upset with myself for touching a raw nerve :(). I was curious as to why - in what looks to me like a clear-cut case of avoiding a simple question - you do seem intent on giving the guy so much benefit of doubt.