Posted on 02/03/2004 9:04:52 AM PST by missyme
In a recent interview for a Christian television network about his film "The Passion of the Christ," director Mel Gibson, complaining about his critics, repeated the following phrase four times: "He is an anti-Semite" - suggesting this was the accusation repeatedly being made against him.
We have never accused Gibson of being an anti-Semite. But judging from the E-mails and letters we have received since we spoke out after seeing the film last month - some blatantly anti-Semitic, many more suggesting our criticism was somehow dishonest - there is a need to clear the air.
First, let us repeat that we do not believe that Gibson intended his film to be a passion of hate. Our concerns stem from history. For nearly 2,000 years, Jews have been the victims of persecution and pogroms fueled by the age-old canard that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus for all time.
The charge of "deicide" or of Jews as being "Christ killers" has persisted through the presentation of Passion plays despite the Catholic Church's historic Vatican II pronouncement in the early 1960s. It denounced anti-Semitism and stated clearly that the Jews of the past, as well as the Jews of today, bear no responsibility for Jesus' death.
Gibson's film rejects the modern church reforms. We were saddened and pained to find that "The Passion of the Christ" unambiguously portrays Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.
We are shocked that Gibson has not fulfilled his promise to remove the most troublesome aspects of this film. We are especially concerned with a scene in which a mob of Jews who are present when Pontius Pilate condemns Jesus to death calls down a blood curse (Matthew 27:25). This scene so far remains intact, even though Gibson indicated that he was removing it.
Even if that particular scene were removed, there would still be ample material in the film to reinforce the image of Jewish responsibility.
We are troubled that Gibson continues to spurn our requests for an audience and that he feels the criticism of his film is part of a campaign to label him an anti-Semite. Gibson's only response to our numerous requests for a meeting was a brief letter, sent last week, in which he failed to address any of the concerns we have raised.
Our concern is that the images could be used by those who are disposed toward hatred to harden their hearts.
Jewish and Christian leaders have not given up hope. We have urged Gibson to consider adding to the movie a postscript with him coming on screen at the end to implore his viewers not to let the film turn some toward a passion of hate.
That riot was based on antisemitism.
We are shocked that Gibson has not fulfilled his promise to remove the most troublesome aspects of this film. We are especially concerned with a scene in which a mob of Jews who are present when Pontius Pilate condemns Jesus to death calls down a blood curse (Matthew 27:25). This scene so far remains intact, even though Gibson indicated that he was removing it.
The ADL is correct in stating that the Vatican II Ecumenical Council in the early 1960s clarified that the Catholic Church rejects collective responsibility of Jews for all generations for the death of Jesus. If Gibson's film merely presents the Gospel account, however, then it is in no way contrary to that teaching of Vatican II. Some Jews, as well as Romans, are directly responsible for Jesus' being condemned to die, as there were some Jews and Romans at the time who were not responsible. We cannot blame any Jew of the present day for that. And just because the Jewish crowd in the Gospel says responsibility will be upon future generations, that is not a statement of God, but just the opinion of those individuals, and as we know from the Church's teaching, it is a wrongful opinion.
I don't perceive it as white racism, but simply racism and injustice. The laws have done enough to remedy past discrimination. They simply need to treat people fairly now. The problem remains within people depending on their level of spirituality, civilization, and to a lesser extent education.
Some of the criticism is that the movie portrays the Romans favorably the Jews unfavorably. The movie is not the book. The book is not the movie. You will of course see the movie and form your own opinion.
I think it is more important that they simply read the books. From the comments I've already seen on FR I simply don't trust the emotions this movie has uncloaked.
The movie is being criticized for elements that are present in the Gospels as well. We all recognize the problems with anti-Semitism among Christians in the past. Collective responsibility was explicitly condemned by the Church at Vatican II, and the Pope tried to "purify memory" with an apology at the millennium. Foxman might justly criticize that this teaching is not more loudly mentioned, and I personally would not even object to having a quotation from "Nostra Aetate" in either the opening or closing credits of the movie. But for Foxman to say that mere presentation of the Gospel story, in which members of the Jewish Establishment were instrumental in Jesus' death, as in and of itself anti-Semitic, is simply ridiculous and an attempt to make a politically-correct falsification of history. Of course the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin thought Jesus was a false teacher and a heretic, since he claimed to be the Messiah and differed in his interpretation of the Mosaic law. The Talmuds, which stem from the Pharisaical Rabbinical tradition, denounce Jesus as a false teacher and a black magician. These are just facts. Yes, they can be misused to support the notion of collective punishment, but the facts themselves do not support such a notion, and the Church has condemned such a notion. I think Foxman is actually making the situation much worse than it is by facile accusation of anti-Semitism when there has not been any such thing.
Maybe we should remove the most troublesome aspects of the Bible, too, while we're at it. Would that make you happy? < /sarcasm >
I have no problem with anyone reading and following the book. In fact, I encourage it. Please do it.
As for the LOTR movies, they were fantasy with themes that apply to this generation. I don't recall any strife like this on those threads. I imagine if anyone had the nerve to make a movie about Muhammed these days people would die because of the strife. I hope that does not happen with this movie like it did with the Passion plays in Europe.
You say the world is getting rid of her demons
I say "Baby what have you been smoking?"
I don't hate Jews and am not anti-Semitic. I fully blame the Palestinians for the lack of progress in Middle East peace. However, Christians are likely to become upset when they are falsely accused of anti-Semitism, which is what Foxman appears to be doing, and of accusing the Gospels of anti-Semitism for merely stating the fact that the Jewish establishment of Jesus' time did not like him and lobbied the Romans to put him to death. It is the injustice of Foxman's accusations excites the anger, not anti-Semitism.
We have never accused Gibson of being an anti-Semite. But judging from the E-mails and letters we have received since we spoke out after seeing the film last month - some blatantly anti-Semitic, many more suggesting our criticism was somehow dishonest - there is a need to clear the air.
First, let us repeat that we do not believe that Gibson intended his film to be a passion of hate. Our concerns stem from history. For nearly 2,000 years, Jews have been the victims of persecution and pogroms fueled by the age-old canard that Jews bear responsibility for the death of Jesus for all time. >
The charge of "deicide" or of Jews as being "Christ killers" has persisted through the presentation of Passion plays despite the Catholic Church's historic Vatican II pronouncement in the early 1960s. It denounced anti-Semitism and stated clearly that the Jews of the past, as well as the Jews of today, bear no responsibility for Jesus' death.
"I think [Gibson]'s infected, seriously infected, with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views." -- Abe Foxman
"[Gibson]'s got classical anti-Semitic views." -- Abe Foxman
"When [Gibson] can say that he now understands how Jesus felt now - not before he made the film, not because the gospel inspired him, but now - because he has been criticized and attacked. That's anti-Semitism." -- Abe Foxman
"...does [Gibson] have attitudes that are anti-Semitic? Yes." -- Abe Foxman
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.