The Passion police

Townhall ^ | 2/28/04 | Doug Giles

[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.

[Burkeman1]

The comparison of "Schindler's List" and "The Passion of The Christ" is interesting. I thought of "Schindler's List" immediately after viewing "The Passion"- the reaction of the two movie audiences were identical- silence at the end and both sat through all the credits until the lights were turned on.

[SkyPilot]

Great article---thanks for reminding me that the Internet is the hammer of free speech, and the blogosphere (especially FreeRepublic) is the anvil on which ideas are tested and forged.

In years past, effeminte movie critics and shady lawyers turned leftwing columnists could spew their talking points, and frame the debate.

No longer. The "the passion is anti-Semetic" and "it's too violent" charges were hammered out in the blogs, and hit out of the park.

Left wing critics who tried to interfere with this movie remind me of that Chicago Cubs fan (whatshisname) ---Steve Bartman?----who puts his grubby paws on the ball and prevented the Cubs from getting into the World Series.

Congrats Liberals----how does it feel to be Steve Bartman?

[SkyPilot]

"Don't catch that ball!!! It is anti-Semetic and too violent!!!!"

[lainde]

bttt

[HiTech RedNeck]

A swastika would mean nothing to a 1st century Pharisee...

[Imal]

LOL my thoughts exactly.

How about a test where you don't even see the whole inkblot, but are pretty sure it's a swastika anyway?

[VxH]

>>A swastika would mean nothing to a 1st century Pharisee...

The Nazi swastika is not the only version.

The Swastika is an ancient symbol that appears, in various forms, all over the world throughout recorded history.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=history+of+the+swastika

[VxH]

>>I always like the idea that Jesus was writing the names of the accusers

Or a symbol that identified their group. Look at the Old Testament history of the Children of Israel.

Who was it that kept leading them back into Idol worship every chance they got...

Moses goes up on the mountain to get the 10 commandments, and when he comes down, there's the pagan golden calf waiting.

What's the worlds oldest pagan symbol? The Swastika.

[wardaddy]

Can you elaborate?

That all sort of went over my head.

Respectfully.

[VxH]

>>Can you elaborate?

 

Sure, let's look at some examples where the people of Israel were led astray to worship pagan gods and idols:

 

    Ex 32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down

           from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said,

          "Come, make us gods who will go before us.

 

    1 Kings 16:13  because of all the sins Baasha and his son Elah had committed and

          had caused Israel to commit, so that they provoked the LORD, the God

          of Israel, to anger by their worthless idols.

 

    2 Kings 21:11  Manasseh king of Judah has committed these detestable sins.

         He has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him and

         has led Judah into sin with his idols.

 

    Ps 106:35-37
        35 but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs.

        36 They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them.
        37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons.

 

There are further examples, but the above suffice to illustrate the point - that there was a continuous effort by Satan to lead the Children of Israel - the people chosen by God to provide the lineage of Jesus Christ - into temptation and self-destruction.

 

Elements of the leadership of the people of Israel were used by Satan to mislead the people into the worship of pagan gods.

 

Forms of the Swastika are common to many pagan religions...  the seditious members of the Sanhedrin, (the group of priests who had Jesus arrested) - who were collaborating with the Romans  - would have recognized their own guilt through this symbol...

 

 

Here's another illustration: 

 

If Adolph Hitler was working under an assumed name at a fruit stand in Bolivia, and you walked up and drew a Nazi Swastika on the ground... the message - "I know who you are and what you did", would be clear.

 

[VxH]

It's the context of the question of guilt that makes it plausible, and what made me think of the Swastika.

Let the one of you who is without guilt throw the first rock and, oh, by the way, How's your project to sell out your people to the Romans and their pagan gods comming along?

I've elaborated on this elsewhere:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087653/posts?page=50#50

[q_an_a]

Are you afraid that biblical absolutes will be strongly resurrected into the public arena and thus potentially ruin your randy relativism?

one can hope and pray. This is what seperates today's practicing Christian from those who just check the box on their "forms".

[Dialup Llama]

>Easy turbo, in the Gospels Jesus is shown to have been writing in the sand at one point. It is never revealed what it is that He writes, but a common idea, through tradition is that it was a drawing of a fish, an early Christian symbol. From watching the film, I saw what looked to be the beginnings of a fish as well.

Another speculation I heard was that Jesus wrote the names of people in the crowd and some of the secret sins they committed.

[OneVike]

It looked like an S on it's side... and then, though we didn't see what was written, Jesus arm motion appears to write another "S"

The scriptures point out that Christ was writing in the sand, but never say what he wrote. My belif is that he was writing hebrew word for sin. So it would not be unimaginable to think Mel had Jesus write the hebrew sign for sin.

Just a thought.

[Imal]

It's the context of the question of guilt that makes it plausible, and what made me think of the Swastika.

I think the point of contention is whether or not the swastika would have any significance to members of the Sanhedrin, and whether or not it would, as you insinuate, be considered a symbol of evil by them.

Although the swastika does have a long history in south and east Asian religions, as well as in several cultures around the world (including ours prior to the Nazis), I have seen nothing definitive indicating that it represented evil to the eyes of ancient Jews. I have seen the swastika inscribed in Buddhist and Hindu sacred places, where it is considered a sacred symbol, but it was assuredly not a representation of evil.

For more on what the swastika has actually represented historically in various cultures, you may want to check out this informative article on Wikipedia. If, after reading that article, and perhaps conducting other research, you still think the swastika could have been used by Jesus to represent evil, I will be fascinated to see your explanation -- with sources cited.

Did you actually read any of the histories of the swastika pointed to by the Google search you included in Post #47?

I did. They invariably contradict your claims. To quote one example: "The swastika existed as a symbol of good fortune thousands of years before the Nazis even existed."

Let the one of you who is without guilt throw the first rock and, oh, by the way,

You have already thrown the first rock, by making a wild, unsubstantiated and insulting claim. You have thrown a second rock by asking an absurd and insulting question, addressed below.

If you are so sensitive to criticism, I can assure you that the problem lies not with us, but with your aberrant behavior. If I had posted such things, I would expect no less. We all are subject to the same rules. You are not a martyr.

People who throw rocks should not live in glass houses.

How's your project to sell out your people to the Romans and their pagan gods comming along?

What the hell are you talking about? I think it is quite reasonable for me and anyone reading this to expect you to clarify such a pernicious and slanderous question. I am not selling anything, let alone my people.

I'm sure the impetus for your crass question is interesting, if not true, but be assured that hurling false accusations around will not increase your standing with me nor on FR. Nor will it deter me from debunking your falsehoods.

I've elaborated on this elsewhere:

I am unable to substantiate your claims based on your elaboration, but I am curious as to how you have arrived at the conclusions you have. If you have any references that can reasonably validate your claims, please present them.

But I hope you can understand how laying out talk of Jesus writing swastikas in the sand and Jews having a project to sell ourselves out to "the Romans and their pagan gods", without at least something to back it up, comes across to those of us who have no idea what you are talking about.

You are entitled, of course, to engage in whatever bizarre sophistry you want. You are not entitled, however, to expect my unqualified support for it.

[VxH]

>>But I hope you can understand how laying out talk of Jesus writing swastikas in the sand

 

Actually, I was wrong, it wasn't a swastika.  I saw the movie again today.  My apology for the confusion.

 

Gibson flashed back to a scene where the Sanhedrin was going to stone a prostitute. 

 

Gibson showed Jesus drawing a line in that sand.  Then above that line, an S was drawn, Jesus then began to draw another character, that we did not see the completion of, to the left of the "S".

 

So Gibson leaves it up to the imagination of the viewer to decide what word he was thinking about, that began with "S".

 

Hmmm.. Let's see:

 

Satan was shown tempting Jesus in the garden, Satan was shown watching and smiling as Jesus was being scourged and tortured, Satan was following along and smiling as Jesus bore His cross on the way to be crucified.   But Satan wasn't smiling when Satan was left screaming in hell as Christ ascended.

 

So, I'm going to use my Imagination and take a wild guess to complete the word that began with the "S" that was *clearly* drawn in the sand, by adding "atan". Satan?

 

    Ps 106:35-39
        35 but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs.
        36 They worshiped their idols,which became a snare to them.
        37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons.
        38 They shed innocent blood,the blood of their sons and daughters,

             whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
        39 They defiled themselves by what they did;  by their deeds they prostituted themselves.

 

    Rev 2:9 (Jesus Christ said)
        I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

 

 

And, before you go all "anti-Semitic" on me, I'm not saying that "all" Jews were a synagogue of Satan.  That would be as ludicrous as saying that "All 240 million Americans blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City".   In both cases, It was just a seditious few.... traitors within.

 

But, of course, that IS just my personal interpretation of the Word... and I could be wrong.

[VxH]

>>Let the one of you who is without guilt throw the
>>first rock and, oh, by the way, How's your project
>>to sell out your people to the Romans and
>>their pagan gods coming along?

 

That didn't come across quite like I had intended.

 

It wasn't meant to be interpreted as a question to, or accusation of, either of you.

 

Should have prefixed to read something like:

 

[

        It's as if Jesus was saying to the Sanhedrin:

 

        Let the one of you who is without guilt throw the first rock

        and, oh, by the way, How's your current rendition of Psalm 106:36 coming along? ]

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[VxH]

>>So it would not be unimaginable to think Mel had Jesus write the hebrew sign for sin.
>>Just a thought.

Whatever it was that Jesus wrote, it stopped the would-be stone throwers, um, stone-cold.

I'm wondering if it didn't have something to do with these scriptural references:

Ps 106:35-39
        35 but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs.
        36 They worshiped their idols,which became a snare to them.
        37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons.    

        38 They shed innocent blood,the blood of their sons and daughters,

             whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
        39 They defiled themselves by what they did;  by their deeds they prostituted themselves.

 

 Rev 2:9 (Jesus Christ said)
        I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.