[af_vet_1981]

That's true. That documented history is that only one Jew has been killed after a Passion play since the Middle Ages. That one was in Germany, in (I believe) the 19th Century.

I suppose you don't count Hitler's and Himmler's visits to Ober Ammergau. I wonder if you ever read their quotes. They are not widely publicized but are available.

The Jewish people take a long view of history. In America we have been safe. There has only been one pogrom here that I know of.

So let me ask you two questions - 1) Have you actually seen the movie? 2) If so, did you perceive all the heaping tons of anti-Semitic bigotry claimed by Krauthammer and Safire?

1. No. I would see it with Mel and Hutton Gibson in their home, just the three of us.
2. From what I've read and seen about the movie I think Mel tried to make a movie that was true to his Catholic heritage. He used artistic license to add things to the movie that are not in the NT text. Some of them can be viewed by people who do not trust him as antisemitic. I don't think he plotted them from antisemitism. I believe him when he says he is not antisemitic. I also believe he had to be exposed to antisemitism from Hutton for many years. I am uncomfortable with his comments wanting to kill Frank Rich, blaming Jews for blaming the Holocaust on Catholics, saying Jews would come to his house to kill him, blaming everyone else accept his father Hutton. I'm much more concerned about the effect the movie has on people than what Mel actually put in the movie or left out. I think he could have made the movie in ways that mitigated the criticism without deviating from the NT text. I think he made mistakes.

[Qwinn]

"I suppose you don't count Hitler's and Himmler's visits to Ober Ammergau."

Hmmm. That name really rings a bell, I believe that is the name of the one case in Germany I was referring to, in which case I may just be wrong about it being in the 19th century, and it was the 20th, and the one you're talking about is the same one I'm thinking of. Personally, I thought my version was worse.

As to your answer to my questions - well, I think you ought to see the film if you're going to discuss what effects it has on people. But at least your conclusions have been mostly accurate, so I won't make an issue of it. I can fully respect your answer to #2, though I don't agree with everything you said.

"From what I've read and seen about the movie I think Mel tried to make a movie that was true to his Catholic heritage. He used artistic license to add things to the movie that are not in the NT text. Some of them can be viewed by people who do not trust him as antisemitic. I don't think he plotted them from antisemitism. I believe him when he says he is not antisemitic. I also believe he had to be exposed to antisemitism from Hutton for many years."

I'm totally with you on all of the above.

"I am uncomfortable with his comments wanting to kill Frank Rich,"

I'm not, not after what Rich said about him and his father first, and how. More detail on that at the end of this post.

"blaming Jews for blaming the Holocaust on Catholics,"

Well, some of them have. I've spent man-weeks defending some really horrific slanders about Pope Pius XII, many quoting Jewish sources. The funny thing is though, I've mostly defended those charges with quotes -from other Jews- who bore witness to how many of them were -saved- by Catholics, and who have documented the Pope's active challenge to Hitler. So in that sense, many Jews have made a vicious and unfair charge against Catholics, and many others have defended Catholics in inspirational and absolutely honorable ways. In other words, some were good, some were bad. Just like in the movie. Just like in life.

"saying Jews would come to his house to kill him,"

If I remember correctly, he specifically said SECULARIST Jews in the quote you're alluding to. It bothers me that that's always left out. That's a massive difference. And I bet you anything that Gibson would find far more in common between a Secular Jew and a Secular Christian, than he would a Secular Jew and a Practicing Jew. He knows that most of the hatred comes from secularists posing as Jews, not from real Jews.

Personally, I consider the entire perception of Jews as a race to be ridiculous. The only reason I ever address anyone who isn't religious as a Jew is out of some respect for the concept of self-identification, but I also believe that anyone who calls themselves a Jew because their great grandmother was one and they like the occasional bagel is no more Jewish than John Kerry is Catholic. Judaism is a religion, not a race, and 99% of the problems we have stem from the distortion of that fact.

"blaming everyone else accept his father Hutton."

I assume you mean "except", not "accept". I don't get what you mean here. Is he supposed to blame his father for the lies spoken by his critics? Or just for questioning Holocaust figures? Personally, I found his comments to Diane Sawyer to be entirely appropriate in terms of completely repudiating his father's position without being so dishonorable as to DISHONOR HIS FATHER. That's the 4th Commandment, remember? If someone were to demand that I help them gang up on my father when 90% of the world is already against him, I'd tell them to bite me. Mel's obligation was to say what his position was on the questions of his father's claims, and that that position didn't match his father's. He did so in no uncertain terms in his interview with Diane Sawyer (despite media spin to the contrary). To demand more than that is just plain wrong, as it is to force a man to elevate political correctness over the bonds of his own family. That way lies tyranny.

"I'm much more concerned about the effect the movie has on people than what Mel actually put in the movie or left out."

Okay, although it troubles -me- that you don't seem to be able to distinguish a "reaction to the movie" from a "reaction to unjust, false criticism of the movie".

"I think he could have made the movie in ways that mitigated the criticism without deviating from the NT text."

I don't see how you can say this, given that there was massive criticism of this movie before -anyone- had a chance to see it. Frank Rich's criticisms in particular. He had no chance to see it. He made his incredibly virulent judgments completely sight-unseen. What could Mel -possibly- have done in his movie to mitigate -that- criticism, given that those rants were done -blind-? Rich's tirades were born of pure bigotry, nothing else (and it's the main reason why I don't have a problem with Mel's reaction)

Then the ADL followed up, even before that bogus stolen script came out. The smear campaign began before anyone had any idea what Gibson did or didn't do.

Also, something you need to know - Mel inserted things into his interpretation that were -not- in the Gospels that were clearly, blatantly -pro- Jewish. One example is the high priests in the Sanhedrin who oppose the trial of Jesus, and the statement by some of them that Caiphas and the rest of his cohorts held the whole thing in secret so that most of "the Council", other clergy of the Temple, that would have opposed the trial would not be present to object to it (and the couple that did oppose it on camera in his film were forcibly removed). I don't recall any of that in the Bible - or, at least, if Caiphas held it in secret, it was not because of other members of the "establishment" but because of the common people. What enraged me upon rereading some of the screeds is how so many of them repeatedly claim that Mel "left out anything that was good by the Jews", when dammit, he -inserted- stuff that was even complimentary to Jewish high priests that isn't in the NT! -That- is what enrages me. The critics -hoped- most people would be too stupid or easily misled to question them, and on top of being manipulative and wrong, that's also repulsively arrogant.

Qwinn