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.

[Redwood71]

Blaming the Jews of today for actions taken 2000 years ago, is the same idiotic thought as blaming the whites of today for the errors of the slave holders 150 years ago. And as in the writing, blaming Germany for the anti-Jew actions 60 years ago especially since the liberal writer, like her cohorts, are supporting Saddam by saying we shouldn't have deposed the most prolific killer of Muslims in history, just like Hitler was the mass murder of the Jews.

It's time for the public to get past the sitcom mentality, deal with reality as it really is, and make a better world than what was there in both cases. It is not done with persecution or attacks, but with cooperation and trust. And sometimes, a little truth that is real.

[WV Mountain Mama]

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. Tell him what he won, Bob! Yet, she probably stood up for Clinton when he said it depends on what is is, and oral sex is not sex, etc, etc. Funny how the left thinks.

[dfwgator]

I mean, no one worried about violent actions taken against innocent Germans.

All things considered, the Germans got off easy.

[fortunecookie]

Well, I could make a joke about her hovering around a cauldron, but that wouldn't be nice. The detractors must really be desparate, which means it should be a terrific and powerful film, because their attacks have gotten more rambling and vicious and personal than ever. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[StolarStorm]

Great! More press for the Movie. Every time one of these numbnuts attacks Gibson or his movie, more tickets get sold. In my area, The Passion is sold out until the end of March.

Folks, if these anti-Christians and paranoids didn't attack, the movie would probably end up being a minor film. As it is now, it will end up being one of the highest grossing films on History. It's all part of the plan.

[TommyDale]

If Mel Gibson's movie is based on the Bible, why haven't all these people been protesting the 'Good Book'? Why is it only now that they find that Jesus was crucified by Jews? Most of us are smart enough to know that the Jewish people were not responsible, but only a handful. This is no different than blaming all white people for slavery. It demonstrates sheer ignorance and stupidity, not to mention the hatred. Revisionism and political correctness continues to rear its ugly head.

[hopespringseternal]

This may not signify anti-Semitism, but it certainly signifies a frightening moral obtuseness.

Not really. It signifies obstinance in reference to political correctness. Even while acknowledge "gulag" revisionism, she fails to understand that this is exactly what this is about.

When you look at WWII and thereafter, you see where darkness tried to envelope the globe. Facism, Nazis, and the holocaust were but one piece. Communism was another part.

Evil loves to flog the dead horse of fascism to distract attention from the live but ailing evil of communism.

Because this film is such a direct threat to atheist, communist elites, they are going to go all out to label Mel a fascist and anti-semite, even when it is obvious he is neither.

[BrooklynGOP]

But George Mason University law professor David Bernstein points out on the Volokh Conspiracy weblog that Holocaust "revisionists" typically do not deny that Jews were killed; they simply minimize the killing, portraying it as another part of the overall death toll of World War II rather than the systematic extermination campaign that it was.

I don't have a problem with Mel's "Passion", nor do I have a problem with the fact that tens of millions of non Jews died in WW2. The problem is the denial that when it came to Jews there was a systematic extermination campaign. That's revisionist.

[aimhigh]

All things considered, the Germans got off easy.

Actually, Germany was divided for 40 year, with half the population out under the vice of communism.

[verity]

The media is the enemy.

[h.a. cherev]

The fact remains that some "Jewish" scholars do not want the Passion to be shown because they do not like the historical fact that Jewish hierarchy was intimately involved in the death of Jesus.

Can you name names? Or provide some basis for your allegation (about "Jewish" scholars, not about Jewish "hierarchy")?

Every comment I have read in the Jewish newspapers I subscribe to indicate that some people are afraid that the movie will cause some Christian viewers to commit violence against Jews or their institutions. We can debate whether this fear is rational or not, but I'm more interested in your perspective that their "real" motivation is a different type of fear.

[dfwgator]

And because of WW II, which Germany (and to some extent the Soviet Union) started, all of Eastern Europe ended up under communism. By the way, East Germany only had 17 million inhabitants compared to West Germany's 50 million. We lost 31 US servicement to supply West Berlin during the blockade. We poured billions of dollars into Germany for the Marshall Plan, Eastern Europe got zip, nada!!! In fact whole factories were shipped back to the Soviet Union from Poland. Germany got much better treatment after WWII than her victims.

[h.a. cherev]

Of course Cathy saw nothing controversial about "The Last Temptation of Christ" I bet.

You do not go far enough. Be it "The Last Temptation" or that loathsome exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum that Guliani fought a few years ago, the liberals defended the "vision" of the artist. Yet, with Gibson's "vision", they offer condemnation. As an observant Jew, I find their denounciations to be revolting.

[Sabatier]

The media loves to oversimplify, reduce every situation to black and white, good and bad, and not allow any room whatsoever for depth or complexity. In other words, sensationalize.
Hitler systematically exterminated Jews and also Christians, Gypsies and the handicapped in his attempt to create the Master Race. This is the opposite of everything Christ stands for, the opposite of everything Christians believe in. I think that's the context that Mel is thinking within but that's apparently too subtle for the mainstream media to understand. To turn around and act as if Mel Gibson was making excuses for Hitler is just plain nuts.

[leftcoaster]

You are absolutely correct.

"Gibson's reply: 'I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened.'"

But in her later comment she inaccurately quotes Gibson: "Given an opportunity to state clearly that the Holocaust happened and that it was a horrific crime, Gibson, instead, chose to hedge -- to give a "yes, but" answer..."

Where did Gibson say "Yes, but"?

[h.a. cherev]

If Mel Gibson's movie is based on the Bible, why haven't all these people been protesting the 'Good Book'?

Where have you been? "Gay rights", "Abortion on demand", "Separation of Church and State"...they HAVE been protesting the "Good Book" for many, many years.

Why is it only now that they find that Jesus was crucified by Jews?

Interesting. According to your own theology, it was the Romans who actually crucified him.

Most of us are smart enough to know that the Jewish people were not responsible, but only a handful.

Ah, but it's the few "dumb" ones among you that the Jews are worried about.

[Oberon]

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

BULL____.

It's a family website, after all.

[Freedom4US]

It's a beautiful thing, when lying leftists are fully exposed. While the writing and logic is about 6th grade level (let's not impugn the character of grade schoolers, though) she is of course deadly serious.

Frankly, this non-movie goer finds it curious that a movie that hasn't even been released yet can garner a full page of philosophical masturbation, when hollywood and the arts in general has no qualms about denigrating religious worship.

So let me get this straight. It's OK to show major religious figures as criminally insane or worse. Our own domestic media has endless, mindless television programming that is highly biased against traditional moralities and obviously pushes a leftist social agenda. Taxpayer funding was controversially used when one brilliant artist immersed a crucifix in a glass of urine. How is it wrong, then, when a moviemaker decides to cast historical figures accurately as is possible, that this is now a problem. Further, what about the much vaunted issues of 1st amendment rights, cinematic license, and the simple fact the bastards can just choose to not see the movie? Hollywood has been poisoning the minds of viewers for generations now, why is this suddenly now a problem?

[sandbar]

>they simply minimize the killing, portraying it as >another part of the overall death toll of World War II >rather than the systematic extermination campaign that it >was.

Hey, call me antisemetic, but is it so wrong to say that EVERY life lost was just as important? Are they saying that a jew's life is worth more then say, someone who starved in the Ukraine? Both were deaths as a result of the war... Both were wrong. Both were unnecessary.

[h.a. cherev]

Actually, Germany was divided for 40 year, with half the population out under the vice of communism.

Interesting that you would feel that this is sufficient "punishment".