BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. I haven't seen the film. But I think Gibson's point was to show the truthful magnitude of the sacrifice that was made. To santitize it even slightly would be to minimize it.
Posted on 12/17/2004 9:49:11 AM PST by missyme
In perhaps the most horribly bigoted piece I have ever read in my life, Frank Rich from the New York Times this morning excoriates Mel Gibson, Christians, Christmas and just about everything else that is good in America.
It’s a long piece, but the whole gist of it can be summed up by the fact that Rich calls Christmas “pervasive.” And a merry one to you, too, Mr. Rich.
Says Rich on Gibson and The Passion:
As we close the books on 2004, and not a moment too soon, it's clear that, as far as the culture goes, this year belonged to Mel Gibson's mammoth hit. Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh, is as representative of our time as "Godspell" was of terminal-stage hippiedom 30 years ago.
The Gibson conflation of religion with violence reflects the universal order of the day — whether the verbal fisticuffs of the culture war within America, as exemplified by Mr. Donohue's rant on national television or, far more lethally, the savagery of the actual war that radical Islam brought to our doorstep on 9/11.
Hmm. That’s nice, he compares The Passion of The Christ to 911. How can we take this seriously? How can the New York Times print this hate speech? Oh … that’s right, it’s the New York Times.
What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian)..
What it’s about, Mr. Rich is the obvious bias and hostility the cultural elites like ex-film critics at the Times and Hollywood libertines feel and express in virtually every medium toward people like me, just regular middle-American folks. And then you have the temerity to say it’s all “imaginary” and use you column to even further paint mainstream Americans as dangerously out of the mainstream.
And yet one need look no further than Mr. Rich’s column (indeed not further than any given page of the Times) to prove the very hostility he claims never existed. Frank Rich and his elitist coastal pals who are living in a fantasy world.
Now onto the clear flaws in Rich’s column. He writes: “As for The Passion of the Christ, it achieved the monetary landslide of a $370 million domestic gross (second only to the cartoon saviors Shrek and Spider-Man).”
Did you catch that? Second only to two other movies. One could even say it was third only.
And then, after a long and tortured screed about how 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas and Christmas is so “pervasive” in this country and how we are the clear majority, he proceeds to explain why we are merely a vocal minority:
The power of this minority within the Christian majority comes from its exaggerated claims on the Bush election victory. It is enhanced further by a news culture, especially on television, that gives the Mel Gibson wing of Christianity more say than other Christian voices and that usually ignores minority religions altogether.
Now we can be either an abusive and peacock-strutting majority or we can be a paranoid, nasty minority, but we cannot be both, Mr. Rich. We know why they would publish such horribly anti-Christian ordure in their pages, but why would the New York Times allow such bad column writing on it’s pages?
If ever there was a reason to sign our petition, Frank Rich’s column is it.
The power of this minority within the Christian majority
"minority within the Christian majority"
Sounds more like is is discussing only one segment of Christians and not all.
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. Shards of flesh being torn repeatedly by the whip, as shown in the movie, being the prime example.
The left continues to go postal. It is amazing that a Newspaper once highly respected has fallen to this level of vile.
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. Shards of flesh being torn repeatedly by the whip, as shown in the movie, being the prime example.
Just a question for you?
If that beating was given to Osama Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Huessin a Serial Child Killer do you think it would be over the top?
Jesus took a beating for people like them as well as all of us...
The New York Times would never print this crap about any other religion than Christianity.
Folks, it's time to take back Hollywood.
Sometimes the truth is hard to watch.
The Crucifixion and the Resurrection ARE THE TEACHING.
The sermons, miracles and parables are the footnotes Christ gave to His central teaching: His own glorious death and Resurrection.
Is there is a more loathsome person on the planet than Frank Rich? He is a plagiarizing, condescending, bigotted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his jewish heritage. Anyone who thinks any of the aove statements are hyperbole should read his writings and the writings of other journalists about him.
Total sleaze and bigotry - that's what is "pervasive" at the Slimes.
The point I made was the way it was portrayed in the movie itself. I thought it was portrayed with purposeful brutality that was beyond credibility. I was not taking issue to the fact that Christ was brutalized prior to his crucifixion.
On the other hand, I am not taking issue to the portrayal of the cruxifiction scene, which I thought was well done.
The Sermon on the Mount and his parable should not be forgotten (and too often they are). But Mr. Rich should bear in mind that when we affirm the Nicene Creed (as many Christian churches do) there's a reason why the crucifixion and resurrection are mentioned and the parables are not.
If Gebson had a made a movie called "The Sermon on the Mount," I would expect just that on the screen. If he had called it "Jesus of Nazareth" or the "The Messiah" I might expect the full biography Rich and other critics did. But the movie lived up to its title.
Looks like the New York Times and the BBC are in a race to the bottom...
So the truth lies in Mel Gibson's subjective interpretation and portrayal of the occurrences on that day and not in the Biblical verses which discuss his treatment?
I wasn't trying to make an absurd point with you..
Mainly with the hypocrites in the Media talking about how they were so appalled with the violence in the movie, yet if they saw the same violence perpetrated on Hitler that would be A-Okay it's "Jesus" they have a problem with and that is why they bashed the violence because the story is about Jesus Christ and Christianity...
BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. I haven't seen the film. But I think Gibson's point was to show the truthful magnitude of the sacrifice that was made. To santitize it even slightly would be to minimize it.
Actually, Jesus was so marred that he didn't look human, according to scripture, and Gibson said he pulled his punches otherwise it WOULD have gone beyond being watchable at all.
The Scripture says that He was scourged.
Gibson, far from bringing a "subjective interpretation" of his own to bear, consulted with historians and recreated a scourging of the kind administered by the Roman military.
The Scripture says scourging and Gibson showed a scourging.
Were you under the impression that the Romans used a wet towel or a whiffle ball bat to scourge people?
I think if you saw it, you would agree with me that the way Gibson portrayed this portion of the torment was excessive.
I think if you saw it, you would agree with me that the way Gibson portrayed this portion of the torment was excessive. I don't have any desire to see it. But I stand by my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.