Does Gibson deserve the 'Passion' backlash? (the answer is "YES")

Boston Globe ^ | 2.16.04 | Cathy Young

[rface]

MEL GIBSON'S soon-to-be-released film "The Passion of the Christ" -- hailed by some as a powerful account of the last hours of Jesus' life, decried by others as an inflammatory screed with anti-Semitic overtones -- has become a lightning rod in the culture wars. The film's conservative defenders have charged that the criticism is driven by liberal fears of religion's growing influence on society. The critics charge that conservatives are using the issue to whip up a hysteria about alleged persecution of religion. Recently, the debate shifted to another inflammatory issue: Holocaust denial and comparisons between the Holocaust and other atrocities.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>Have I missed anything?<<

You missed the revolution called political-correctness that swamped America over the past 30 years.

Some lives are more valuable than others. Didn't you know that?

The lives of the 9 million Ukranians murdered by Stalin, or the 30 million murdered by Mao, do not count.

They were collateral damage in the cause for "social justice".

[Sideshow Bob]

My four great-uncles were conscripted against their wishes and religious convictions into the Bundeswehr and killed during the war.

They fought for Nazi Germany and died.

The German people of that generation bear the responsibility for the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler.

****

Ah, another galactically ignorant comment.

Did you bother to read any of the rest of my post?

Do you even know what a German Mennonite is? They are the slightly more modern cousin of the Amish sect as depicted in the movie "Witness" starring Harrison Ford (if you're not from Wisconsin, Ohio or Pennsylvania, you have likely never seen an Amish or Mennonite). They are pacifists and devoutly religious. They shun society and most modern conveniences.

As for my relatives, I don't know if any of my great uncles ever actually held a weapon or even fought. All that is known is that they were forced into the back of an army truck at gunpoint and told to either fight or be killed. And that shortly thereafter, they were dead.

Please explain again how my barely literate farmer family who shunned society, had no electricity, no radio and no newspapers were complicit in the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler.

Call me naive, but I think Neville Chamberlain bears just a little bit more repsonsibility for unleashing Hitler on the world.

[Michael121]

Actually you are right and wrong. Sorry about what your family went through but it was Hitler and his minions who would not quit.

What was destroyed was. It was war and total war. Yes a lot of bombs killed a lot of people.

The 101st and 82nd on attacking in Normandy sent 13 and 14 year old Hitler youth back, they took their weapons and kicked them in the butt. But the kids would find their units and fight again. The second time a US squad met that kid they shot him. American soldiers were compassionate to a point.

But in all the books from all the personal accounts I have read and vets I have talked to the Soldiers had respect for the German people. They would start picking up when the battle was over. The US soldier had NO RESPECT for the Frenchies. Overall they said the Germans just took it and did not complain when a chicken was killed etc... but the Frogs had a fit.

Japan showed that it was all or nothing. 184,000 people died as a result of 2 A-Bombs. 120,000 died on Okinawa alone. 12,000 American soldiers on Okinawa were casualties. it was always 10-1 in the US favor. 70 Marine casualties, 700 dead Japanese. With possibly 1,000,000 US casualties during the Japan invasion it was about saving our boys lives.

It was the same with Germany. Massive firepower overwhelming force against the Germans. Expend ammo instead of lives.

[af_vet_1981]

Ah, another galactically ignorant comment.
As for my relatives, I don't know if any of my great uncles ever actually held a weapon or even fought. All that is known is that they were forced into the back of an army truck at gunpoint and told to either fight or be killed. And that shortly thereafter, they were dead.

Ignorant
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

I accept the fact that you don't know. I'm not sure why you expect me to know more about your great uncles than you do. You wrote "My four great-uncles were conscripted against their wishes and religious convictions into the Bundeswehr and killed during the war." You did not write whether they resisted unto death or were killed fighting Americans, Russians, British, or other allied forces.

Please explain again how my barely literate farmer family who shunned society, had no electricity, no radio and no newspapers were complicit in the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler.

You derived and extracted the word complicit from the phrase bear the responsibility.

One can be responsible without being complicit or one can be both. I don't know that your great uncles were complicit. Your story portrays them as martyrs. If they were genuine Christians they surely would have resisted evil unto death and been martyrs. Therefore they would not have been complicit. Their level of responsibility would have depended on their knowledge about Germany and what actions they took.

Call me naive, but I think Neville Chamberlain bears just a little bit more repsonsibility for unleashing Hitler on the world.

There is no need to call names. Millions of the German people of that generation voted for Hitler. That generation bears the responsibility more than any other nation. They unleashed Hitler on the world. They cheered him. They fought for him. Neville Chamberlain was ineffectual and weak because he hoped to avoid war when war needed to be fought.

[Texas2step]

I urge our Christian brothers and sisters to reign in those of a more extreme nature so they do not write anything that is hateful, ugly, vulgar, and malicious.

And, I wish you would do the same with your Jewish brothers. The hate I've seen from some (mainly, one) Jewish poster on the passion threads has been 100 times anything I've seen the Christians say on this one.

Want to tone down the "intensity" of this debate? Easy enough done. Urge your Jewish brethern as you imply we Christians should be doing.

I've got more to say about this whole subject, but don't have the time right now. Be back later.

[af_vet_1981]

And, I wish you would do the same with your Jewish brothers. The hate I've seen from some (mainly, one) Jewish poster on the passion threads has been 100 times anything I've seen the Christians say on this one. Want to tone down the "intensity" of this debate? Easy enough done. Urge your Jewish brethern as you imply we Christians should be doing. I've got more to say about this whole subject, but don't have the time right now. Be back later.

I see. You need my Jewish brothers and I to show you how you are supposed to behave as Christians. I understand. I will do my part.

[af_vet_1981]

Holocaust denial is relevant here because of Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson. A prominent member of the "traditionalist" Catholic movement which split off from the Catholic Church over the 1965 reforms of the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, rejected the doctrine that the Jews were guilty of "deicide") is also known as a Holocaust denier. Of course Gibson shouldn't be blamed for the sins of his father; but in an interview with Peggy Noonan, forthcoming in the March issue of Reader's Digest, he says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

• I agree with the author's premise. It is Hutton Gibson's published comments and Mel's reluctance to criticize them publicly that touches a raw nerve. To his credit, in his latest interview "Gibson insisted on Primetime he is no anti-Semite, and that anti-Semitism is "un-Christian" and a sin that "goes against the tenets of my faith."
• I agree that Mel has a right to make a movie. "This is my version of what happened. According to the gospels and what I wanted to show. The aspects of it I wanted to show," said Gibson.
• I agree that everyone should be civil to one another and refrain from profanity and religious or ethnic insults.

[Southern Federalist]

Two comments:

1. I think it's true that there are both Jews and secularists who just don't think it's good for the Gospel story to be told in public.

As far as the secularists go, I say: "Tough stuff, we're going to tell it anyway; it's what we do."

Jews on the other hand do have some historic reasons for nervousness abount the Gospel passion story, and it is largely the fault of Christians. The Christ-killer slander was widely taught in Christian churches for centuries, and until not that long ago, and it certainly did promote antisemitism.

Telling Jews that all those church-members and church teachers who abused them weren't "true Christians" is not much comfort. The point is that they thought they were true Christians, they were counted as such in their day, and they said that they learned to hate Jews from the Gospel passion stories.

Gibson has really been very clear that he wants to say that human sin killed Jesus, not Jews as such, and that the story is one of incomprehensible love for all of us, though none of us deserve it. It's now up to the Christian churches and communities out there to show Jesus' kinfolk that we get that message too -- to preach the same message with our behavior. Nothing else is going to be convincing or deserves to be.

2. Is it possible that Gibson's "evasive" answers on the Holocaust are the answers of a man who does accept the truth of the Holocaust but is trying to say so without saying that his father is a loon on the subject?

According to an advance report , his ABC news interview (airing tomorrow) contains this:

Gibson raised hackles recently with published statements in which he noted Holocaust victims were among many victims of World War II. He told Sawyer he doesn't mean to deny either that the Holocaust occurred or that there were millions killed.

"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."

Asked if the Holocaust represented a "particular kind of evil," he told Sawyer it did, but added, "Why do you need me to tell you? It's like, it's obvious. They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?"

I can't say that sounds like Holocaust Denial to me. He does go on to say that he doesn't want to have to say that one genocide is worse than another. It isn't very well-put, but I don't think that a person who won't say that the Holocaust was "worse" than the genocide against the Armenians is a Holocaust Denier or an antisemite.

My own belief is that the genocide against the Jews means something uniquely horrible because the Jewish People stand for something unique. I am haunted by the reported remark of Hitler that the Jews had to die because they invented that accursed thing, conscience. That's not the same as saying that it is a worse crime on the moral level to kill Jews than to kill Armenians -- something which I have never heard any Jew claim either.

I don't think Gibson sees this, but I don't see any evidence of antisemitism or Holocaust Denial in any statement of his I have read. And I think that anyone who for some reason remembered my comments on Israel threads back when I posted more would agree that I am not indulgent towards antisemitism or Holocaust Denial either one.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To read later

[Texas2step]

I see. You need my Jewish brothers and I to show you how you are supposed to behave as Christians. I understand.

No, just making the same request you have made from the other side. In case you haven't noticed, I've called on a few Christians on these threads to tone down the rhetoric, but haven't noticed you following suit. Don't tell me you haven't seen what I'm talking about, that wouldn't be honest.

To be honest, I haven't seen much on the Christian side to be ashamed about. In the totality of the comments made, only a small fraction of the Christian posts have been hostile. You believe otherwise, I'm sure, but that's your perogative. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should believe.

I will do my part.

I won't hold my breath. :-)

[Texas2step]

Here, flame away...



What's the matter, guys? The Christians aren't laying down and taking it anymore? Does that throw you for a loop? I find it kind of funny that a bunch of Jews are accusing the Christians of not being Christian enough.

I would accuse you guys of not being Jewish enough, but to be honest, I do not feel qualified to pass judgement on the Jews. So far, it seems that anything is fair game.

For example, based on the reaction of the Jews on this forum, it's okay to:

Call someone anti-Semitic, even though there is no history of anti-Semitism.

Hog the Holocaust as something especially reserved for only the Jews.

Slander the writers of the 4 Gospels. Including calling them traitors, thugs, theifs, and more.

Call the Gospels a bunch of lies.

Say that Jesus, himself, did not even exist.

Make the claim that if you beleive the Gospels, then you hate the Jews.

Be told that we were taught to hate the Jews since birth.

Be held responsible for something that someone claiming to a be a Christian did hundreds of years ago.

Be called un-Christlike for challenging those who slander and challenge our beliefs.

Accused of being hatefilled, when all we're doing is defending our faith.

I can give you chapter and verse where each of these things have happened, recently, on discussions on this Forum. But, I don't have to, I believe that you have either seen or participated, and done nothing in response. In a word, you have condoned the slander of my faith.

Does that make me mad? Not really, but it's frustrating beyond belief.



Now, let's go back to the author, her writing, and potential beliefs.

First, Mel Gibson has made a movie about the "Passion of The Christ". This is descriptive of events that we believe, and even most Jews agree, did happen 2,000 years ago. It is not a movie about the Holocaust. The best movie I've seen about the Holocaust, IMO, was made by a Jew. Here, we have a Christian making a movie about Christ.

Following along so far? Get this, the Passion of The Christ has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Period. Even were Mel Gibson a Holocaust denier, it's not relavent to this movie. Period. All that matters is that the movie is accurate to the Gospels. I've heard enough reviews from people who have actually seen the movie, both Christians and Jews, that I believe he has done exactly this.

So, the question is not relavent to the topic at hand.

Even were the topic relavent, let's look at a few facts. Not assumptions, but facts. In his this interview of which this author is writing about, he was asked if the Holocaust happened. The author characterizes his response as "yes, but". That by itself is a false characterization. Leads me to believe that the author of this story has an agenda and places the whole article in question.

If I were to characterize Mel's response, I would say it was more of a "yes, and". You cannot have a Holocaust survivor without a Holocaust. He stated, in response to the question, "yes, of course". Most of the issue that, evidently, many Jews have with this is that it wasn't simply a "yes, of course". They take exception to the "and" part. I have asked 3 Jews on this forum what answer would have been acceptable to them. All 3 of them wanted specific words to be used in a specific manner. If he wouldn't answer with those specific words, then they would consider his answer to be revistionist, if not outright denial. He couldn't win, and it wouldn't have mattered how he answered.

Let me break here for a second. Answer something for me. Why is it that some Jews claim the Holocaust is only the 5-6 millions Jews that died? Why are the others left out of full Holocaust status? There's another word that is used for the "other", I'm assuming, 2nd class folks who died. I don't remember exactly what word is used, but I'm sure that one of you fine gentlemen know.

And, why is it, if a person tries to classify all of the "extermination" type deaths as part of the "Holocaust", they are considered revisionists, at best, by some Jews? I'm just curious about this.

Holocaust denial is relevant here because of Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson.

This statement is completely out of line. First, it's not relavent because of the issues listed above, but to tie the sins of the father (for the sake of arguement, I'll stipulate Hutton's sins) to the son is ludicris. Mel Gibson has never said or done anything that would indicate that he is a Holocaust denier. And, if something were there, I promise you we would have heard it by now. I'm sure that there are plenty of folks combing the woodwork for something, anything, please, that would indicate this.

My father, from a different era here in the South, is a racist. There's no easy way around that. He's not as racist now as he was when I was younger, but I promise you it's still there. My dad taught me my faith. As far as I know he's never lied to me. Does that mean we don't have different opinions and views? Absolutely not.

Does that make me a racist? I can assure that I am not, but how do I prove to you my lack of racism? Marry a black woman? Sorry, didn't happen. I guess, by this authors reasoning, I'm a racist. There's nothing that could be further from the truth.

Have I challenged my dad on this? Only subtly, in personal direct contact. It's not something I'm going to condemn in the press!

The, the author challenges Gibson's answers as "minimalizing" the Holocaust, a frequent position of revisionists. Unfortunately, at least to me, he's not minimalizing anything. I've seen another interview, recently, where Mel acknowledged "millions" of Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Unfortunately, I cannot now find that article, but I did read, what I read. That doesn't sound "minimalizing" to me. Millions is millions.

Then the author had the "yes, but" characterization which I've already addressed, and then as a wrap up claimed his answer "signifies a frightening moral obtuseness". I'm sorry, but that characterization must come from facts not in evidence. It's not part of the answer he gave, it's from this author's view of his answer to this one question, and does not take into account anything else he has ever said.

I'd call that reckless, actually. If my characterization of her article is thought by you as "unChristian", then your definition of "unChristian" is flawed.

Respond as you wish. I've taken flaming hits in the past from af_vet, and others, including the poster I don't even have to mention by name. I can take anything you dish out. Just try to be honest, honest to me, honest to yourself, and honest to your faith.

Peace and grace to all.

[commish]

And the cacaphony of the non-believers grows louder as thier UTTER FEAR of this movie and it's message gets worse. The Leftists, athiests, communists, socialists, liberals, heathens (I KNOW I KNOW REDUNDANT) are trembling as the day of opening for THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST draws nearer.

Satan knows what this movie is going to do, and he has his minions out in force to spew his venom. He already knows the outcome, but he will try and claim as many souls and harden as many hearts as he can first.

[af_vet_1981]

I find it kind of funny that a bunch of Jews are accusing the Christians of not being Christian enough.

The Jewish Apostles did it quite often.

Does that throw you for a loop?

Not at all. How else can one explain the history of the last 2000 years ?

[af_vet_1981]

Even were Mel Gibson a Holocaust denier, it's not relevant to this movie. Period.

That is false. You can't hide that behind something you call faith. No true Christian will let anyone get away with that.

[af_vet_1981]

My father, from a different era here in the South, is a racist. There's no easy way around that. He's not as racist now as he was when I was younger, but I promise you it's still there. My dad taught me my faith. As far as I know he's never lied to me. Does that mean we don't have different opinions and views?

What did he teach you about racism and religion ? Did he say he was a sinner who couldn't help himself or that racism was appropriate and ordained or endorsed by his religious faith ?

[Texas2step]

What did he teach you about racism and religion ?

Neither. He didn't "teach" racism, at all. It was never even discussed when I was a child.

Did he say he was a sinner who couldn't help himself or that racism was appropriate and ordained or endorsed by his religious faith ?

Do you live in the south? Were you raised in the south? For some, racism just was. It had nothing to do with religion, and many, for whatever reason could not see how that was inconsistent with the Christian faith.

Is it wrong? Is it inconsistent with our faith? Absolutely.

[Ichneumon]

You were right! See 166.

I await your reply.

[Ichneumon]

I find it kind of funny that a bunch of Jews are accusing the Christians of not being Christian enough.

I find it kind of funny that you incorrectly presume me to be Jewish.

I would accuse you guys of not being Jewish enough,

Now that's *really* funny, since I'm not Jewish.

but to be honest, I do not feel qualified to pass judgement on the Jews.

That much is abundantly obvious, since you've just demonstrated that you can't even tell who's Jewish or not, yet that doesn't stop you from being wildly presumptuous about it.

Your assumption that if I dislike the tone and false accusations that some here have made about the author of the original article, I *must* be Jewish, says a great deal about you.

Are you sure you're as unprejudiced as you believe?

[Texas2step]

I find it kind of funny that you incorrectly presume me to be Jewish

You know, typically, and yes this is a generalization, there are only Christians or Jews on the thread. I've run across very few (only one that I know of) atheist, or agnostics, or other "unreligious" people on these threads.

I've seen you post in other places, and read all of your posts here. There's been nothing you've posted to indicate you are a Christian, so it's natural to assume that you're Jewish.

If I was mistaken in that assumption, fine, I've been wrong before, and I'm typically man enough to admit it. :-)

Your assumption that if I dislike the tone and false accusations that some here have made about the author of the original article, I *must* be Jewish, says a great deal about you.

Actually, your assumption as to how I mistakenly judged you to be Jewish is further off base than my mistaken assumption, though I don't expect you to admit it.

Are you sure you're as unprejudiced as you believe?

And, you're judging me to be prejudiced? Just because I "thought" you were Jewish? If that's prejudicial to you, then I probably am a racist in your eyes. It's easy for some people to judge other people. Think differently about them. Question their comments, their motives, their hearts.

It's not that easy for me to pass judgement on anyone. It's a lot easier to consider me a racist than to address any of the points I made, huh?

[Texas2step]

That is false. You can't hide that behind something you call faith. No true Christian will let anyone get away with that.

Come on, af, this is a, uhm, what's that term you like to use, oh yeah, this is a straw man arguement. I'm sure I don't have to explain to you how, exactly.

The Passion of The Christ is not about the Holocaust. It's not really about "the Jews", although Jews will definitely be involved. But to critic the movie on something other than the content of the movie is dishonest.

Here's how powerful I believe my God to be. He could have used an atheist or even a satanist to make the movie and it still accurately portray the events described in the Gospels. He can use anyone to carry out His plan.

I've seen multiple reviews written by Jews and written by Christians which have described the movie as "accurate" and "faithful" to the Gospels. As to the heart of the man who was used by God to make this movie, I'll leave that to God to judge.

Of, do you not believe God capable of that? We do worship the same God, do we not? You know, the God who brought the Hebrew people out of Egypt. The God who created the heavens and the earth. That God. You believe Him capable?