Where was Foxman when Eisner and Weinstein (Miramax) were mocking Lent in "40 days and 40 nights"?

Catholic League ^ | Feb., 2002 | William Donohoe

[churchillbuff]

As this letter from Bill Donohoe of the Catholic League, two years ago, noted, the Disney/Miramax sex movie, "40 days and 40 nights" not only mocked Lent (and, hence, Christianity), it heaped insult on injury by opening during Lent. Wasn't this an example of Christian bashing by Hollywood (and by two Jewish executives)? But WHERE WAS ABE FOXMAN TO DENOUNCE THIS SACRILIGE? Apparently he can only denounce Christian movies, like Mel's. I for one am tired of the Passion being labeled "controversial," when anti-christian crap is put out incessently by the Hollywood trash and hate merchants -- without a peep from Foxman.

February 5, 2002

APPEAL TO MICHAEL EISNER AND HARVEY WEINSTEIN: RESCHEDULE “40 DAYS AND 40 NIGHTS”

Catholic League president William Donohue has asked Disney chairman Michael Eisner and Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein to reschedule the opening of “40 Days and 40 Nights” (the movie is a Miramax production and Disney is the parent company of Miramax). The film portrays actor Josh Hartnett as a Catholic who pledges to give up sex for Lent but has his will tested by his ex-girlfriend. It is scheduled to open March 1. Lent begins February 13 and runs through Easter, March 31. Donohue is requesting that the movie open sometime after Easter. He explained his reasoning as follows:

“In my letter to Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein, I asked each of them to ‘intercede on behalf of Catholics’ by doing whatever they could to reschedule the movie. ‘To show a film that parodies Lent in a most vulgar way is bad enough,’ I said, ‘but to show it during Lent is outrageous.’ It is no wonder the Fort Worth Star Telegram commented, ‘Pretty sensitive of Miramax to schedule a film mocking Lent during Lent, eh?’ Indeed, the movie is rated R for ‘strong sexual content, nudity and language’ and is noted for its ‘vulgar sex gags.’ Now if this is Weinstein’s Lenten gift to Catholics, he can keep it.

“On the Miramax website, it says the movie is based on the real-life experience of the film’s writer, Rob Perez. Yet the movie’s publicist tells us that Lent was used merely as a vehicle for the character to give up sex—so as to ‘make the story cute.’ But wouldn’t it have been just as cute to portray the character as a Muslim who gives up sex from sundown to sunset during Ramadan and is tempted during the day? That, however, would have cast Weinstein as being insensitive to Muslims and that is not a sin he wants to commit. Indeed, Weinstein postponed the film ‘Gangs of New York’ after 9-11 saying, ‘in light of the ever-changing current events, we have chosen to err on the side of sensitivity and postpone the wide release of the film until 2002.’ Wonderful. Now if only he treats Catholics the way he does Muslims and New York thugs, Catholics will be delighted.”

[churchillbuff]

Did the ADL protest any of this?

From the Catholic League:

Release Date: Sept 20, 2002

Miramax is at it again.

For Immediate Release: Miramax, a film distribution arm of Disney, has a history of antagonizing Catholic audiences with the distribution of movies like "Butcher Boy" and "40 Days and 40 Nights," as well as the notoriously anti-Catholic films: "Priest" and "Dogma."

Now Miramax is at it again. They have chosen to distribute "The Magdalene Sisters." A film by director Peter Mullan that has been described as a "scathing attack" on the Catholic Church, and more specifically, one order of Irish nuns.

The subject of this film is 19th and 20th century religious institutions, derisively know as "Magdalene Laundries." These institutions worked with homeless women and prostitutes, long before modern social programs were developed. Exploiting the fact that by today's standards the conditions of such institution were harsh, the film depicts the Catholic nuns as particularly cruel, heartless women. We wonder what purpose is served by maligning the nuns who selflessly cared for troubled women at a time when society dismissed them as outcasts. The reality that such institutions were run by a variety of denominations, also leads one to question why the ire of the director, and the distributor, is aimed solely at Catholics

Catholic Civil Rights League president Thomas Langan stated:

"Until such time as a film is made depicting the egotistical brothers who co-own a Disney affiliated, anti-Catholic film house, we will join the US Catholic League's boycott of Miramax. We too are petitioning Disney's CEO Michael Eisner to act responsibly and dump this house of film disrepute. Let Miramax distribute what it wants, but not with the backing of the family friendly Disney.

"Disney sees fit to post on its website a 'Code of Conduct' to which its partners must comply. The code clearly offers a 'nondiscrimination' clause and also declares a "respect for the right of all individuals." Miramax however, has seen fit to consistently target Catholics in its films, which is an egregious violation of the Disney Code of Conduct. It is time for Disney to extend and enforce this code over its entire company. Dumping Miramax would fulfill this promise to shareholders."

[Keith in Iowa]

Bill Donohoe is kind of the Catholic's version of Ann Coulter...brash, outspoken, often controversial...and he's correct most of the time too.

[churchillbuff]

With Christians being persecuted today in China and some Muslum countries, why can't we protest against anti-christian messages in movies? Also, the two murderers at Columbine shot at christians - - do you think they might have been influenced by any of Hollywood's anti-christian fare? Eh, Messrs Foxman, Eisner and Weinstein?

[goodnesswins]

bump for later

[Seeking the truth]

Bill Donohoe is kind of the Catholic's version of Ann Coulter...brash, outspoken, often controversial...and he's correct most of the time too

Good analogy.

Not that it matters, but I thought I read somewhere that Ann is also catholic.

[demnomo]

...But wouldn’t it have been just as cute to portray the character as a Muslim who gives up sex from sundown to sunset during Ramadan and is tempted during the day?

The spokespersons from CAIR and AIM would go ape over that one. Disney would be forced to put it on the shelf and give a generous donation to a Islamic charity outfit whose funds would be funneled to a terrorist, er, freedom-fighter organization.

[rogator]

"Foxman, Eisner, Weinstein

Three Jews who probably care about one thing - money.

Oops! I forgot - the Jews don't run Hollywood, right?"

Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their hypocracy, antichristian attitude and liberalism.
We Christians have plenty of similar folks of our own.

[mcg1969]

I hear he doesn't look quite as good in a black dress though.

[MarMema]

We Christians have plenty of similar folks of our own.

Thanks for pointing this out. There have been some scary posts here recently about the Jewish people.

[river rat]

"Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their hypocracy, antichristian attitude and liberalism."

Really? Nothing at all?
That's becoming harder and harder to believe.....

[churchillbuff]

Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their hypocracy, antichristian attitude and liberalism.

So the fact that Foxman is Jewish has nothing to do with his anti-christian mania? That naive claim is contradicted by Foxman's repeated assertions that he doesn't like Gibson's movie because, in essence, he thinks it's "bad for the Jews."

[churchillbuff]

We Christians have plenty of similar folks of our own.

I don't think that's true. While there are certainly a lot of gentile bigots in the U.S., they're at the lower rungs of society. I challenge you to name PROMINENT christian leaders in politics, society or business - - people comparable in status to eisner or weinstein - - who would dare mock Judaism the way eisner and weinstein (and much of the rest of Hollywood) routinely mock Christianity.

[rogator]

I believe that their attitudes are driven in much the same manner as those of atheist, agnostic, or nominally Christian liberals. They hate religion and any thing that puts religion in a good light.

[rogator]

" I challenge you to name PROMINENT christian leaders in politics, society or business - - people comparable in status to eisner or weinstein - - who would dare mock Judaism the way eisner and weinstein (and much of the rest of Hollywood) routinely mock Christianity."

Prominent people don't mock Judaism and Islam the way they do Christianity because the Jews and Momammedans would throw a fit which would adversely affect the mockers.

They get away with mocking Christianity because with the exception of a few folks like Donahue, who has cajones, Christian leaders sit back and wring their hands and say "Oh My!"

As I implied in my previous post, most mockers are enemies of all religions. They would love nothing more than to furthur divide religious people following the example of the Great Divider, Satan.

[churchillbuff]

As I implied in my previous post, most mockers are enemies of all religions.

Again, not true - - Foxman, Weinstein and Eisner mock Christianity, but not Judaism. Same with Hollywood in general. You don't see Judaism reviled in the movies the way Christianity is regularly reviled and ridiculed.

And as I suspected, you weren't able to cite any name of a prominent christian business, political or social person, to back up your claim that there are gentiles who mock Judaism the way Foxman, Weinstein and Eisner (and Hollywood) mock Christianity.

[eddiespaghetti]

"Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their hypocracy, antichristian attitude and liberalism."
Really? Nothing at all?
That's becoming harder and harder to believe.....

FWIW: Two of the most prominent talk-radio hosts in the US, both of whom have for several years been the most outspoken in denouncing the anti-religious, not to mention decadent, garbage that comes out of Hollywood (in both movies and TV), and I'm talking about Dennis Prager and Michael Medved -- are Jewish.

RR: Are you willing to believe that THEIR religious beliefs have something to do with the stands they have taken on this issue? Or is someone being Jewish an important factor only when they are loathsome and offensive?

[churchillbuff]

RR: Are you willing to believe that THEIR religious beliefs have something to do with the stands they have taken on this issue? Or is someone being Jewish an important factor only when they are loathsome and offensive?

I'd say they're being true to an orthodox, conservative understanding of Judaism. The Foxmans, Eisners and Weinsteins are reflecting a strain of Judaism that is liberal and hateful towards christianity and traditional morality.

[eddiespaghetti]

I'd say they're being true to an orthodox, conservative understanding of Judaism. The Foxmans, Eisners and Weinsteins are reflecting a strain of Judaism that is liberal and hateful towards christianity and traditional morality.

THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR PREVIOUS POST, WHICH SAID:

So the fact that Foxman is Jewish has nothing to do with his anti-christian mania? That naive claim is contradicted by Foxman's repeated assertions that he doesn't like Gibson's movie because, in essence, he thinks it's "bad for the Jews."

[eddiespaghetti]

The Foxmans, Eisners and Weinsteins are reflecting a strain of Judaism that is liberal and hateful towards christianity and traditional morality.

I THINK YOU ARE TELESCOPING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. IS FOXMAN RELIGIOUSLY UN-OBSERVANT? (I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS OR NOT). I WOULD BE WILLING TO WAGER THAT EISER AND WEINSTEIN ARE NOT OBSERVANT AT ALL. THAT MIGHT UNDERLIE THEIR HOSTILITY AND CONTEMPT TOWARD 'TRADITIONAL MORALITY.'

HOWEVER, IF FOXMAN HAS SPENT THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS VENTING HIS SPLEEN AT "THE PASSION," I SUSPECT IT IS DUE MORE TO HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A REFUGEE RATHER THAN AS A PRODUCER OR PATRON OF (DECADENT AND DISGUSTING) ART.

TO LUMP ALL THREE PEOPLE (AND ALL OTHERS LIKE THEM)IN ONE CATEGORY IS NOT RIGHT.