Why is Mel Gibson's movie anti-semitic?

Great Debates
41

I presume then that it would be interesting to know that the “controversy” over this movie was stirred up deliberately - for the precise purpose of selling more tickets?

"Gibson’s ‘Passion’ for movie profits
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist, 2/26/2004

Call it the Christ con. Let’s roll back the tape on what might be the most successful – and cynical – movie promotion campaign in Hollywood history:
January 2003: Mel Gibson appears on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News Channel talk show to discuss “The Passion of the Christ,” which Gibson is filming in Rome. (O’Reilly and Gibson have a disclosed business relationship: the actor/
director owns the movie rights to an O’Reilly book.) Ex nihilo – you’ll be needing a bit of that parochial school Latin to get you through this column – Gibson avers that his hitherto unknown movie “does have a lot of enemies.” None is named, although Gibson seems to be complaining about a freelance reporter assigned by The New York Times Magazine to write about the conservative strain of Catholicism espoused by Gibson and his father.

O’Reilly swallows the Gibson guff: “You really believe it’s because you’re making this movie about Jesus?” Gibson answers, “I think there are a lot of things [sic] that don’t want it to happen.” Prior to this interview, Gibson has made noises about his purported inability to find a distributor for the movie.

April-May: Eugene Fisher of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Eugene Korn of the Anti-Defamation League convene a small group of scholars to offer suggestions to Gibson. According to participant Paula Fredriksen of Boston University, Fisher discussed the scholars’ reaction with Gibson and his agents, and asked the group to keep its deliberations, although not its conclusions, confidential.

Mirabile dictu, a lawyer for Gibson accuses the USCCB of working with a script “stolen from Icon,” Gibson’s production company. This accusation, and the scholars’ report, is leaked to Zenit, a conservative Catholic news agency. Zenit complains of “a string of recent attacks on Gibson’s film” and names only one of the scholars contributing to the USCCB-ADL critique – Amy Jill Levine, a professor at Vanderbilt University. “The spin was already in as soon as they got the scholars’ report,” Fredriksen says. “They turned it into the movie that the Jews don’t want you to see, and it worked.”

Perhaps this is the moment to reveal that Gibson’s publicist, Alan Nierob, spent years working for Jennifer Lopez. If you saw J.Lo in, say, “Anaconda,” you can appreciate Mr. Nierob’s gift for turning tiny mustard seeds into hot hot hot properties.

July-August: The punditocracy lurches into “action.” I write about “Passion” in July, but more importantly, the Times’ culture columnist Frank Rich devotes his Sunday essay to the movie a few weeks later. “The real question here is why Mr. Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews,” Rich wrote. Um, because it sells movie tickets? Just a few weeks later, Gibson tells a sympathetic New Yorker writer he wants “to kill” Rich, “to see his intestines on a stick.” Rich fires back in two subsequent columns, and a bona fide media frenzy begins. Could the predictable Newsweek cover be far behind?

December: Ah, the Vatican con. One of Gibson’s producers lets slip that Pope John Paul II had seen “Passion” and liked it. “It is as it was,” the Polish-speaking prelate supposedly said.

Or did he? A top Vatican official later denied the story, but Nierob told the (New York) Daily News he had an e-mail confirmation of the pontiff’s thumb’s-up. Or did he? He didn’t provide the e-mail to the Daily News, and he didn’t return my telephone call.

Manipulating the Vatican? Pretty cynical, you say. But where selling box office is concerned, nothing is sacred.

What is the upshot? Far from being a small project shunned by mainstream exhibitors, “Passion” is opening wide, as they say in Tinseltown, in 2,800 theaters across the country. I bet it will gross at least $70 million in US ticket sales – more than twice the reported cost of the movie. The potential DVD sales through Christian media outlets are enormous. Did anyone mention overseas sales? There are a lot more Christians in South America and Africa than there are here.

To my fellow Christians who deluged me with hostile e-mail in July, please accept this response to your forthcoming messages. I quote Mr. Pilate of New Testament fame: Quod scripsi, scripsi. What I have written, I have written."

Seems to me that both the “Jewish people jumping up and down crying anti-semitism”, and the equally-predictable “Jews always cry wolf” lobby, have been targeted and manipulated to make money - by having their buttons pushed by Mr. Gibson’s publicity machine.

Some may find this outrageously cynical, given the subject matter of the movie; maybe because I am already cynical, I find it kinda funny. :smiley:

42

Hmm, a big idiot? How many types of idiot are there, anyway?

I think a big reason people were concerned that this film could have had anti-semitic intent had to do with one particular verse in the bible:

This verse has been used as justification for continued persecution of Jewish people by those who are so inclined.

This “blood libel” reference was specifically included in an early release of the film, which was screened for various religious groups. I had heard that Gibson removed the verse from the film in response to pressure from those groups. However, today I heard that he just removed it from the subtitles and left it in the film in Aramaic. In any event, the fact that he decided to include it in the first place seems to demonstrate either a strange lack of sensitivity concerning that verse or an intentional anti-semitic bias.

43

First off, I have not seen the movie, nor do I intend to. Watching a two-hour account of a man’s being tortured and executed, rendered in graphic detail, appeals to me about as much as sitting through The Silent Scream. Secondly, I was raised Catholic, and though I am no longer a churchgoer, I admit my biases tend to swing in the Church’s favor (in most issues).

These clarifications out of the way, I believe Mel Gibson has the right to make his movie any damned way he wants. After all, nobody is being forced to see it. If it makes you uncomfortable, don’t go! I don’t enforce my taste in movies on anyone else, and I don’t want anyone else dictating what I’m allowed to see.

I recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that we all approach cinema, literature, artwork, etc. through the lens of our own experiences. I would, however, urge anyone who decries what they see as anti-Semitic content in the film to listen to what Mel Gibson has to say about his own intentions. It’s his movie, and he’s responsible for what appears on the screen. If he states, nay, insists that anti-Semitism is contrary to what he believes in and that he in no way intended for anti-Semitism to form even the smallest role in his message, I, for one, believe him. Mel has stated that his message is to remind viewers of the suffering Jesus was put through for everybody’s sins. Very well, there it is. That’s the intended message. Unless you are cynical enough to believe that he is lying about a matter of his own deeply-held faith, or paranoid enough to believe he has another agenda, I think that his comments on his own work should be accepted at face value.

There is also some truth, I feel, to the claim that the gospels were anti-Semitic to begin with. They were written to appeal to a target audience of non-Jews, and the writers/editors probably took great pains to avoid upsetting the Roman authorities (though it did them little good in the long run). I do not believe, however, that any reasonable person who calls himself a Christian in this day and age truly believes enmity toward the Jews to be a living component of the faith. Note that I do not regard extremists or rigid fundamentalists of any stripe to be reasonable.

People see what they want to see, even at a subconscious level. Think of Rorschach cards. Or photos of the “gunman on the grassy knoll”, which turn out to be light reflections from a soda bottle. If you want to see anti-Semitism in the movie, you will see it. I’ve heard plenty of dissections of art and literature from notable scholars who read all sorts of subtleties and interpretations into the work that I feel its creator had no intention of communicating.

In fact, I am tempted to wonder whether someone who managed to take a movie camera through a time machine back to the actual historical events and filmed them as they happened (assuming they happened more or less as the gospels say) might not also be charged with anti-Semitism upon releasing the footage merely for the crime of not taking greater pains to humanize those who stood against Yeshua-bar-Yoseph at his trial.

44

… then Sunday they go to church and worship a Jew.

Talk about cognitive dissonance…

On a related note, even if Gibson’s flick does show Jews in bad light, it also says that God Himself is a Jew in the human aspect of the trilogy. Certainly that might be seen as somewhat of a positive thing to say about Jews, isn’t it? I mean, you can say worse things about a race than to say a member of that race is your God…

45

I’d imagine that a crusifixion and Flogging is a rather nasty thing. Wether Gibson overdid it is something I can’t judge until I see the film.

46

Let’s set aside the Romans for just a moment. Every other person complicit in Jesus’s death was Jewish. The Sanhedrin were those who had at least some political influence, and according to the gospels, they exercised that influence to help ensure Jesus would die.

But…every person who loved Jesus, who wanted him to escape pain, torture and death, every disciple and admirer, every person who wept over his torment also had this in common: they were Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, every moment of his life.

To say that “The Jews” killed Jesus has as much meaning as saying that “The Americans” killed JFK. An American fired the shots. There were other Americans who were happy it occurred. There were Americans who would have given their lives to prevent it. There were Americans who wept over it, and there were Americans who didn’t care. “The Americans” is a group that had no meaningful relationship to JFK’s death, not as a collective, monolithic entity (and Jack was no Messiah).

If the Jews of the gospel complicit in Jesus’s death are to receive blame, what are we to make of the Jews who loved Jesus? Of the Jews who followed him and carried on his mission? Apparently they don’t count in determining how we should judge “The Jews.” There were Jews depicted in the gospels who were virtuous, and those who were villanous. Some were cowards and some were brave. Some were loyal and some were perfidious. I’ll tell ya, the Jews of the gospels, they were eminently–what’s the word?–they were eminently human. Clearly that should mark them for perpetual castigation. How dare they!

So, what algebra do we conduct to work this all out and determine what blame the current generation of Jews deserve? At what point do we serve common sense and the simple truth of the Word to recognize that only individuals are responsible for individual acts–and no “crowd” can obscure the fact that individuals were responsible for Jesus’s death. Some of those individuals were Jewish. Some were not. As Christians, we believe that we are all responsible, in that we’re sinners. And the gospels are crystal clear on one fact: All those who initially loved and followed Our Lord were Jewish.

This won’t stop those pre-disposed to anti-semitism from using this as yet another opportunity, of course. And it’s also possible that Gibson’s direction has an anti-semitic bias (I’ll withhold judgment until I see it). But Christianity being inherently anti-semitic? It’s ridiculous on its face. Our Savior, in his human form, was a Jew. Those who deny this out of hatred deny also his message.

47

You can’t. Roman complicity (or lack thereof) is the crux of the entire issue. Asking one to leave out the Roman treatment in the NTs is asking the debator to refrain from arguing at all. And you must understand that common Christian understanding sets Jesus and his followers apart as a very distinct subset of “The Jews”. This was true by the middle of the first century.

48

They stopped being Jews. Which is the WHOLE POINT. Yes, it was the sins of all that Jesus suffered and died for: do you really think millenia of anti-semites have just been overlooking that, and that’s all there is to it?

A rather simple one. While we all may be responsible for Christ’s need for death yadda yadda yadda, some of us are like the Jews who conspired to kill him: enemies of his message, unrepentant.

Only if you understand Judiasm purely as a race, rather than a culture and a religion. The NT is most definately very negative when it comes to non-Christian Jews, and a large strain of early Christian theology set about explaining exactly why the Jews (as a people both cultural religious and racial) were such horrid screw-ups and fools for not accepting the Christian message and so on. An argument can also be made that the Gospels present a twisted and demonized picture of the Pharisees (who basically went on to become “the Jews”) and their beliefs and actions. At the very least, the story is very fishy.

49

I should note that I indeed think that Gibson’s movie goes out of its way (and outside the Gospel account) to make the case that Jewish council was responsible and behind it all. Is that anti-semetic?

Well, I agree that in the modern day West, this has little bearing on anti-semetism of older days, and it isn’t going to incite waves of anti-semetism here. But isn’t that because of a change in the audience rather than in the production of a passion play? And what does that mean?

Is a “black scare” type film, taken out of a racist society, still racist? Or does it just happen to have black bad guys after white women, which sometimes does indeed happen, and demonize the black bad guys because, well, that’s what movies do to bad guys? I can’t think of a good answer to that. All I can say is that the film does seem to thumb its nose at people who might be sensitive about the portrayal of the Jewish bad guys.

There are hook-nosed schemers plotting the death of Christ. The head bad Jew is, in his first scene, talking money with Judas. And, as I said, the film takes great pains to make it clear that the ones driving the whole execution are the Jewish council (abetted by the acquescience of Jews who seem to “know better”): making a much stronger case than even the Gospels make. Some of the extra-Biblical stuff was indeed taken from the visions of an unarguably anti-Semetic nun. And there is a lot of extra Biblical stuff that humanizes and exonerates Pilate and especially his wife (again, not in the Gospels, though part of Catholic tradition).

None of this was necessary, even for a story to be true to the Gospels, and as such its inclusion does seem to be at the least a little pointlessly insensitive.

But the movie also makes the faithful Jews less monothilic. Some aren’t bloodthirsty: they are just cowardly and hypocritical. Some repent of their folly.

So the movie is both better and worse. The question I have is why all the “worse” stuff was necessary at all.

50

I haven’t seen the movie and have no intention of doing so, so I have no idea if this movie is antisemitic in intent or effect. It must be noted that, individuals’ own comments aside, the ADL party line was merely to express concern that a re-emphasis on the Christ-killer mythology might be inflamatory. That much is a reasonable concern.

Jews did not all flock to early Christianity. Even before Paul got to it and changed it from a minority fringe sect of Judaism to a new religion that rejected the ongoing validity of The Law, reinterpreting The Law as a trap for sin (as opposed to a chance to do right), some Jews were less that freindly to those who preached the new faith. (Some Jews were less than freindly to any Jew who wasn’t as zealous as they were.) And historically rejection doesn’t go over well. Muhammad was upset that Jews rejected his new faith and changed from speaking well of Jews to writing antisemitic tracts; Luther also reacted to rejection by writing viscious antisemitic diatribes. Just so some of the Gospels contain versions of the history that are less than positive about “the Jews.” (Besides, within Paul’s time early Christians had mostly given up on converting Jews for growth and had turned towards Roman subjects in Roman lands, casting the Romans as the bad guys wouldn’t have been prudent.)

But some look to text for literal truth, and they believe what is written is as it was. Then the question is how to emphasize what was written. Given a large fund of source material, do you include the bits about deciding between the good of one versus the good of all, or edit that out? (out.) Do you emphasise the complicity of the Jews with inclusion of Matthew’s line about upon your children for generations? (in but not translated in the final cut.) Do you make up stuff that wasn’t in the Gospels, like the destruction of the Temple and Judaism being directly related to the rejection and death of Christ? (I understand that’s in there. With poor special effects.)

So beyond being true to a text that has portions that can be read as justification for antisemitic beliefs, an individual can quote selectively according to ones bias and add extemporaneous bits. It sounds like Mel did so. From what I read here and in freindly reviews.

And if you think that history has just stopped and Jews don’t have to be concerned about antisemitism anymore, well I beg to differ.

51

No, I think you’re begging the question (or I’m missing your point). A simple reading of the gospels shows that Jesus and all of his followers were Jews, subject to the same laws and rituals. Certainly they were the sub-set who believed in Jesus’s message. They were still Jews.

Have some Christians tortured the message to support hateful beliefs? Yes, they have. That doesn’t change the fact that they do so in direct contradiction of Jesus’s message and in the details represented in the NT.

And I think you’re missing my “Set aside the Romans” point, which is simply that all non-Romans in the gospel were, well, Jews, and that category of people covered quite a range of virtue and evil. If one is going to use the NT to assess “The Jews” of that period–and I hope it’s clear I think that’s a meaningless exercise–one ought to at least not be so selective in the effort. I assert again that “The Jews” of the NT, with one exception, were human and no more.

And lest my point be misunderstood, I am saying there is no real basis for anti-semitism in the NT, while recgnizing that there are those with hateful minds who assert the contrary. I agree with DSeid’s point that two directors can depict the same basic chronology, and one’s emphasis will betray a bias that the other’s does not. It is entirely possible, I believe, to depict the chronology of Matthew’s Gospel in an anti-semitic manner, even if every basic act and utterance is plucked right from the work.

I’ll reserve judgment till I see this movie, but I hope that’s not the case here, and I fully agree it’s a real worry. Given the level of anti-semitism that exists in the world today, we should be on guard against it, I agree.

52

I’m not sure what you mean by “that’s all there is to it,” but yes, I believe millenia of anti-semites have completely missed the point.

53

Having now actually seen the movie (unlike the bulk of those that began attacking it over ago) I am really amazed at the charge of anti-semitism.

The use of Aramaic and other elements help emphasise the very Jewishness of Jesus and his followers.

Additionlly, in several key points in the film, Gibson actually goes beyond the Biblical text to portray Jews who were not among the Jewish followers of Jesus and yet objected to the way in which he was treated on ethical grounds.

At Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, several of the members of the Sanhedrin are shown objecting vigorously and angrily at the proceedings, shouting things such as, “Why is this trial being conducted late at night? Where is the rest of the Council? This is a FARCE!”

Also, at the point of the Via Dolorosa where the Jewish Simon of Cyrene is initially compelled to help Jesus carry the cross, (one of the Roman guards literally spitting the word “Jew” in Simon’s face in an effort to frighten him) while initially reluctant – after a short while Simon finally gets fed up with the Roman’s abuse of Jesus and goes into a long and loud tirade against the Romans shouting things such as “I don’t care what you do to me! If you don’t stop beating him, I won’t help you carry this cross another step! Stop it, STOP IT NOW!”

Yes, the film certainly does show some Jews being evil, and it also shows many being very good and courageous in the face of frightening persecution.

But of course, for the paranoid fringe of the nay-sayers that are fearing “pogroms in Pittsburg” (to borrow a great phrase from Rabbi Daniel Lapin:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lapin200402250902.asp )

there probably is nothing that will convince them otherwise. Likewise with knee-jerk Christianity-haters like Andy Rooney (who is “tired of hearing about God”)

54

The rabbi sure has a fine collection of strawmen. Let’s look at a few:

“Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting The Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh…”

I’d love to see where anybody suggested there would be pogroms in Pittsburgh or anywhere else. Or, in the memorable phrase of a local talk show, that anyone predicted a Krystallnacht in Cincinnati. What some thoughtful people (perhaps mistaken, we’ll see) were worried about was a stimulation of anti-Semitism in the fashion of Passion Plays of the past. Not all bigotry and discrimination is manifested in immediate violence. Often it’s far more subtle and pervasive. And you can certainly see some of what’s already wriggling out of the woodwork, as in this excerpt from an e-mail list to which I subscribe (on a totally unrelated topic):

“…
All the sudden a movie about Christianity comes out and every one in the
> > Liberal Left and Jewish Owned Hollywood who will not see a penny of this
> > film screams ANTI SEMITISM!”

Nice.

But back to the rabbi.

“…They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress The Passion rather than promote it.”

Huh? I believe there were concerns expressed about certain scenes and maybe a change or two made in response. I don’t remember hearing about moves to completely suppress the movie or “ruin” Gibson.

“…By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity in a positive light, these critics have triggered anger, hurt, and resentment.”

Why yes, wholesome entertainment and anything that makes Christianity look good must be relentlessly stamped out. I’m sure this dark movement can be uprooted if we only have courage. Meanwhile, let’s enjoy this nice wholesome Gibson film with its reportedly relentless portrayal of gore and torture. :rolleyes:

“…In audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness toward Jewish organizations that insist that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism.”

A cite would be nifty here, but of course the good rabbi is careening off into more hyperbolic bullshit.

About the only point he makes with any validity is that some well-meant criticisms of the film will likely turn out to be counterproductive.

55

– As to suppressing the movie:

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=964558

"ONE of Israel’s two leading rabbis today called for a boycott of Mel Gibson’s controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, which he said was untrue, deliberately violent and encouraged anti-semitism.

“I call on all Jews and non-Jews to boycott this lying, anti-educational, gratuitously violent film, which can only encourage anti-semitism by falsely accusing the Jews of killing Jesus,” the head of the Ashkenazi community, Yona Metzger, said.

“I hope that it will never be shown in Israel, because sin must not be rewarded.”

The chief rabbi was speaking the day after the head of the influential ultra-Orthodox Shas party demanded that the film be banned from being shown in Israel…"

– I would consider a call for a movie to be banned a tad bit suppressive.

And as to the subject of “ruining” Gibson:

New Film May Harm Gibson’s Career

By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: February 26, 2004

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 25 — Mel Gibson’s provocative new film, “The Passion of the Christ,” is making some of Hollywood’s most prominent executives uncomfortable in ways that may damage Mr. Gibson’s career…

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men.

(Note: following the publishing of this article, Katzenberg & Geffen deny this.)

…The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of “The Passion of the Christ” and the star’s remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: “It doesn’t matter what I say. It’ll matter what I do. I will do something. I won’t hire him. I won’t support anything he’s part of. Personally that’s all I can do.”…

The other studio chairman, whose family fled European anti-Semitism before the Holocaust, was less emphatic but said, “I think I can live without him.”

Jackmannii responding to Rabbi Lapin:

– Here’s a cite. From a column by Rabbi Boteach:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37015

"…To be sure, my evangelical friends tell me they do not blame the Jews for the death of Christ, and that Jesus willingly submitted his life so that humanity might be saved from sin. This evangelical reading is a version of the crucifixion portrayed in the gospel of John, where Jesus is in control of the entire Passion narrative.

But the version that Mel Gibson seems to have highlighted – based on every serious review of the film that I have heretofore read – is that contained in the synoptic Gospels, and especially that of Matthew, where the Jews are portrayed as being the principal agitators for the murder of Christ, goading the reluctant Romans into the act of deicide…"

– So for Rabbi Boteach, it would seem that he is saying that for a Christian to accept the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels is inherently anti-semitic.

56

– And again, for those taking the tack that the Gospels are inherently anti-semitic, where is the indignation and denunciation of the famed Jewish sage Maimonides, who said in his Letter to Yemen:

“Jesus of Nazareth, impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions.
The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”

57

Orthodoxa,

You had to go to the ultra-Orthodox Shas to find someone calling for banning the film … and then only for banning it within Israel. Boy, what does that tell you?

Party line was “concern.” Individuals had different beliefs, fueled by what seem to have been calculated comments by Mr. Gibson. You could easily find others more mainstream than Shas who concluded that Mr. Gibson was an antisemite.

As to suggesting a boycott of something that you feel is objectionable and hateful, as Rabbi Metzger apparently has concluded this film is, well that is standard protest tactics, and unlikely to have any effect on this film’s likely viewership other than to pique interest. Not exactly “suppression.”

No one has suggested resultant Pograms in Pittsberg, Torah Torching in Tallahasee, or Jew-baiting in Juno. Just concern that this era in which violence against Jews has been on the rise (thread links available upon request) and more endemic Jew hating is becoming more overtly vocalized from quarters both Left and Right, could do without a repopularization of the Christ-killer myth that was used an antisemite’s rallying cry for generations.

Finally I do not need to work with Mr. Gibson so I do not really care if he is an antisemite, a racist, a homophobe, or a Communist, or none of the above. He is just a celebrity to me and I don’t give a shit about what celebrities think. But I can tell you that I do not want to work with people who are actively antisemitic, racist, or homophobic. (Communists are okay.) If I had concluded that Mr. Gibson was one of those things then I would be unlikely to hire him if I was in a position to do so. It may be that he is not antisemitic but was instead calculating how to maximize exposure of his film and encourage wide viewership in his target audience, and figured that dissing Jews was a good business decision. If so, then I do not feel too bad for him if it has negative business ramifications for him as well.

(Comments on choosing particular aspects of source material based on your pre-existing bias have already been made.)

58

– It tells me that among at least some of the opponents of this film, that when they are in a position of sufficient political power (such as Shas in Israel) that the “concern” smoke-screen is removed and a blatant call for a complete ban is made.

While their numbers have been dwindling at an alarming rate under Israeli persecution, there are still indigenous Christians living in Israel. Do they not have any right to have an opportunity to see this film? Do you support the ban in Israel?

– Being that “racist, antisemitic, and homophobic” are often used by the left as code words for tradionalist Christians, are you saying you support blacklisting Catholics but not Communists?

And where are all of the self-appointed defenders of artistic freedom, who support exhibits where crucifixes are placed in jars of urine and images of Mary are smeared with dung, but apparently don’t have any problem with people demanding that Gibson make his film according to their desires?

59

What code book do you have access to that I’ve not seen?!

Your comment veers into the truely bizzare.

As to Shas. That’s Shas for God’s sake! They are extreme fundies just like other extreme fundies. Sure some extremist fundies will call for extreme actions on all fronts and Jews are not exempt from having idiots among their numbers. No, I would not support a ban here there or anywhere. I do not like bans Sam-I-Am.

Gibson can make whatever he wants. He can cover an image of Maimonedes in pig blood if he wants and call it art. And I can attempt to dialogue that such would be insulting and explain to others why it would be insulting. I both support his right to make the film and my right to object to it if it contains something offensive to me.

BTW, I don’t want to work with someone who actively hates Christianity either. If nothing else it is tiresome being around people who hate and need to express it publically. They make for an unproductive workplace.

60

I’d just like to piggyback on this and point out that it was these things, when I saw the film last night, that I thought of later when I considered the accusations of anti-Semitism that have been levelled against The Passion of Christ. Particularly the part of the film with Simon, which was a significant part of the film and went on for some time. Simon’s last moments with Jesus were quite telling, I felt.

Frankly, my feeling on it now is that the only people who can say that The Passion is anti-Semitic are those who haven’t seen it. There’s no way an honest person could walk away after seeing that film and says that it’s a blanket condemnation of Jews. Absolutely no way.