Posted on 02/28/2004 7:46:41 PM PST by rhema
Is it just me, or did Mel Gibson make Satan out to look like Sinead O’Connor in his latest movie, “The Passion of the Christ”? Coincidence? I don’t think so. And what about the baby with the old man’s face that Lucifer was carrying around in that unholy Madonna-like scene during Christ’s scourging? I swear it was Andy Rooney.
And while we’re on the subject of Mr. Rooney … hey, Andrew, it’s really time to give up the “60 Minutes” gig. Your screed against Mel officially augers for your retirement, forced if necessary. For you to call Gibson a “nut job” is like Michael Jackson calling Peggy Noonan “freaky.” Give it up, Rooney. Don’t “ruin-e” your career more than you have already. Just move down to Miami, get a tan, eat the early bird at Wolfie’s, continue to grow those fertile eyebrows and keep convincing yourself that Bertrand Russell was right. Most important, do us all a favor … zip it.
What is up with the violent knee jerk regarding “The Passion”? Man, has this film struck a nerve, or what? The two top criticisms leveled at “The Passion” are that it’s anti-Semitic, and too violent. They’re the spoken critiques, but I really think there’s another agenda.
Let’s dissect the above three amigos.
First off, “The Passion” is not anti-Semitic, its pro-history. Do the Jews want to erase from the historical record the carnage of the holocaust and its perpetrators because it makes Germans uncomfortable? I don’t think so. Just because a few bad first century religious leaders yielded up Jesus to the Romans for crucifixion doesn’t mean that well modulated 21st century followers of Christ will condemn an entire race.
I guarantee the Germans are not thrilled over Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List”. Nevertheless, the story had to be told and the movie had to be made. To shade the historical evidence of the holocaust atrocities because it might offend some Germans is ridiculous and does a disservice to the past, the present and the future of both Jews and Germans.
Think about it. Christians don’t particularly like the fact that at every turn Hollywood, the media “elite”, the educational “elite” and the Liberal Left seek every opportunity to trash Christianity … but it happens unremittingly. Modern Christians are immediately linked to the Inquisition or the Crusades every time they speak out publicly on an issue or pray over their lunch at the Olive Garden.
Christians know what Jews go through regarding persecution. There are rabid monosyllabic anti-Christian and anti-Semitic sentiments at work in the world brought on, primarily, by the WWF tag team of Islam and liberal secularism. If Orthodox Jews and committed Christians want to get defensive, these are your two main detractors, and that’s where the ADL should focus their energy and resources.
All families, religions and nations have creepy stuff we would like to forget, that our ancestors did. We can’t re-write the past just because it isn’t soft focused and flowery. We would never learn if we were never forced to look in the ugly historical mirror.
Secondly, we come to the “too violent” charge. This is too funny. First of all the film is about a crucifixion, it’s not about a Wal-Mart Assistant Manager’s Day sale. It’s supposed to be bloody, Captain Not-so-Obvious. Isn’t it ironic that the critical squealers who disapprove of Mel’s R-rated reenactment of Christ’s death are usually the same one’s who are okay with the gratuitous fake blood-dripping cans of celluloid AKA “Natural Born Killers”, the "Scream” trilogy, the "Hannibal Lector” series, “Dracula”, “Texas Chain Massacre”, “Pulp Fiction”, and “Desperado”?
The majority of movies nowadays are bathed in a sea of blood. Most sport a slew of voluptuous, high-heeled, screaming coeds running from a butcher-knife-wielding, slow-moving, hockey-mask and blue-jumpsuit-wearing oaf. Heck, if it’s not mildly to wildly pornographic, screaming and bleeding … it just can’t be fun!
And these morons who laugh and eat popcorn while watching meaningless death are now offended at Gibson’s meaningful, historically accurate portrayal of Jesus’ scourging and crucifixion?
My ClashPoint is this: I can understand the Jewish concern of anti-Semitism, although I believe in this movie and from proper New Testament exegesis, it is unfounded and there is nothing to worry about. It is undeniable: the Jews do not have a stronger ally on the planet than Christians as we honor, look to and protect our spiritual, ancestral covenant roots.
And all this stuff about “unnecessary violence”? Hey, that’s the way it was!
But what are these critics really concerned about? What is it about “The Passion” that really worries the secular liberal left? What’s up with the Christophobia, guys?
Are you afraid that Jesus Christ and his principles are going to have a national/global renaissance? Are you afraid the film is going to assist a Judeo/Christian effort to bring truth and dignity back to this country? Are you afraid that righteousness is once again going to be re-introduced into our land before you secularly sink it?
Are you afraid that biblical absolutes will be strongly resurrected into the public arena and thus potentially ruin your randy relativism? Are you afraid of personal accountability and responsibility in an age of blame shifting and bovine scatology? Are you afraid that the moral law is going to wreck your amoral life?
That’s it, isn’t it? That’s why you’re working so passionately to vilify “The Passion of the Christ.” That’s your real agenda.
He had other negative things to say, but I didn't listen very long. People like him remind me that the enemy is alive... and not very happy about the success of this film.
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.