Posted on 02/16/2004 7:22:27 AM PST by rface
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:38 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
On opposite sides of the political and religious spectrum (in fact they fought one another, didn't they?), yet both came together to oppose Jesus? Interesting. Also interesting how you don't mention the Romans who actually performed the crucifiction.
So if both these groups bore "considerable responsibility", then if violence occurs specifically because of the Gibson movie, will you restrict blame to only those who commit the violence or will you be more generous in apportioning blame? As a supporter of the movie - and one who appears unconcerned about the sensibilities of the movie's critics (the ones who restrict their concerns to the possibility of violence) - how will you feel and what will you do? WWJD?
No argument from me there. The Romans were going to crucify Him at the demands of the mob. The Jewish religious leaders were the ones accusing Jesus of heresy.
Ah, but "true Jews" back then yelled "Crucify him, crucify him"?
Of course. Who do you think the crowd was? It was Roman-occupied Jerusalem. Are you suggesting there were no Jews living in Jerusalem? That's absurd.
It appears you want it both ways, doesn't it?
No, only one way -- the Truth.
There are those who say that the Nazis were Christian. In point of fact, most were born into a Christian faith. But by their conduct they proved that they were not Christian and, in fact, diametrically opposed to Christianity, correct? The same argument could be made about the Klan. They burn crosses and demand the supremacy of "White Christians", but how many of us would say, "oh yes, they're REAL Christians." Shouldn't the same standard apply to the Jews?
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Anyone who burns crosses to create fear or murders millions of innocent people because of their race is not a Christian. No one is saying that the Jews yelled "Crucify him, crucify him!" because they were Jews, but because they were manipulated by their religious leaders to eliminate their Messiah, who they refused to recognize as such. I don't know anyone who professes Christianity that would hold Jews responsible now. But attempting to squelch or censor a movie that is historically factual is ridiculous and hateful.
If Person A initiates an attack on Person B, who represents no threat to Person A and has done nothing to Person A, for no reason other than Person A doesn't like Person B (regardless of reason) than Person A is responsible.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Love your response.
Cathy, you ignorant slut...
This is NOT a zero-sum game. Just because someone *else* suffered, it does not mean that the suffering of the Jews is somehow diminished. Everyone can see who's really being obtuse here (it's not Mel).
What were the other 6m?
Turnips?
I'm not denying that Jews were systematically murdered, not at all. But I think there's more to it than just the murder of the Jews, and I think that is often over looked.
Perhaps I, too, am a holocaust denier because I don't believe the jews have a monoploy of victimhood of the Nazis.
Interesting spin: the film has conservative defenders, but the film's detractors are simply critics. Why aren't they liberal critics? Oh, I forgot, pardon me, liberals aren't liberals...they're mainstream. My bad.
Liberals are outraged that a genuine depiction of religious sentiment is stirring the hearts of people. The religion of secular humanism detests true religiosity and seeks always to suppress it, to eradicate it, if possible. The persecution of religion is not alleged: it is real and growing.
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, to gloss over the Nazi extermination of the Jews and quickly move on to other victims of other regimes. This may not signify anti-Semitism, but it certainly signifies a frightening moral obtuseness.
Young's obtuse reasoning reveals the seductive spin she wishes to give Gibson's motivations for both the movie and his answer to the question about the Holocaust. She equates Gibson's citation of the horrific suffering imposed upon humanity by socialists like Hitler and Stalin with a dilution of the strength of his condemnation of the Holocaust. But that is projection of her own biases onto Gibson: the secular humanist religion requires forgiveness for socialists who happen to be communists, even if they happen to murder a few million more people than non-communist socialists like Hitler. It is she who dilutes the condemnation of genocidal maniacs like Stalin and Mao.
It is she who frighteningly dilutes the condemnation of genocide. She says "yes, but..." to the condemnation of human suffering if the government responsible for such massive crimes just happens to be run by communist socialists rather than national socialists. In doing so I think she validates the idea that there is indeed a persecution of religion, since secular humanism cannot permit any religion but itself to exist. To reduce the impact of this film by any means is, therefore, the primary goal of critics who assail it - or Gibson - as bigots.
And this movie with, attendant controversy, may well be another part of his perfect plan.
And possessing the additional strengh of being true.
Also interesting how you don't mention the Romans who actually performed the crucifiction
Because the post was a response specifically associated with a discussion of the possible roles and responsibilities of the Jews with respect to pre-Vatican II teaching. So, maybe not that interesting after all, just sort of, what's the word I'm looking for...obvious, yeah, that's it!
Of course. Who do you think the crowd was? It was Roman-occupied Jerusalem. Are you suggesting there were no Jews living in Jerusalem? That's absurd.
It appears you want it both ways, doesn't it?
No, only one way -- the Truth.
There are those who say that the Nazis were Christian. In point of fact, most were born into a Christian faith. But by their conduct they proved that they were not Christian and, in fact, diametrically opposed to Christianity, correct? The same argument could be made about the Klan. They burn crosses and demand the supremacy of "White Christians", but how many of us would say, "oh yes, they're REAL Christians." Shouldn't the same standard apply to the Jews?
I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Anyone who burns crosses to create fear or murders millions of innocent people because of their race is not a Christian.
Exactly right. If a Jew yells,"Crucify him, crucify him" what makes him or her a Jew? You seem to have no trouble recognizing that if a Christian acts contrary to the teachings of Christianity, then he or she is not a Christian. But you also seem to feel that yelling, "crucify him, crucify him" IS part of the Jewish faith and thus those who yelled were Jews. Is my point any clearer?
No one is saying that the Jews yelled "Crucify him, crucify him!" because they were Jews, but because they were manipulated by their religious leaders to eliminate their Messiah, who they refused to recognize as such.
No where in Jewish scripture is it permitted to do what this crowd is alleged to have done. If the Nazis and the Klan are not Christian (despite having been born into that faith), then how can the crowds be Jewish?
I don't know anyone who professes Christianity that would hold Jews responsible now.
I imagine there are some.
But attempting to squelch or censor a movie that is historically factual is ridiculous and hateful.
Historically factual? Not something I want to get into. But I will agree that attempting to squelch or censor the movie is moronic.
Can't speak for Jesus, and I don't speak for Christians, I just speak for myself, a Christian who has sinned before and will undoubted ly sin again.
But I think any rational human being would go to see the film before passing judgement on what it might or might not do.
Historically speaking however, I find it doubtful that Christians, in general, will develop a hatred for Mary, Joseph and the apostles because they were semites. I know that's a stretch but there you have it.
Well, I think it's a little more complicated than that. But maybe it's not for you.
Have a nice day.
The "backlash against Jews" argument is being used by the ADL as a reason not to show The Passion. Is this a valid argument by the ADL?
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.