Passionate split: New cross to bear for neo-cons

WASHINGTON - Increasingly split and defensive over whether the United States must cooperate more with the United Nations and Europe and whether Syria or Iran should be "next" in the "war on terrorism", the country's neo-conservative movement is now beset by a new source of tension within its ranks - Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ.

As ticket sales for the Australian superstar-filmmaker's gory, blood-drenched cinematic interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life surpassed the US$200 million mark less than two weeks after its Ash Wednesday release, the debate over whether the movie is anti-Semitic in its intent or effect has unexpectedly split the neo-cons who, in pursuit of their strong support for Israel's security, have made common cause with the Christian Right for some 25 years.

The Passion, which could become the biggest-grossing movie of 2004 and surely the biggest ever with subtitles - the actors speak in Aramaic and Latin - appears to have pushed some very influential neo-conservatives over the edge.

Thus, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer last weekend denounced the movie as a "blood libel" against the Jews that challenges the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine that the group should not be held responsible for the crucifixion and constitutes a "singular act of inter-religious aggression".

Gibson "openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews", Krauthammer wrote, detailing the ways the film in effect depicts the Jews, particularly their high priest Caiaphas, as "Satan's own people".

Echoing the reviews of liberal critics, Krauthammer added that Gibson's depiction of Pontius Pilate as a reluctant and even compassionate executioner defied both the Gospels themselves and everything that historians have learned about the man.

Leon Wieseltier, a neo-conservative critic at the New Republic, found The Passion to be "without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie. What is so shocking about Gibson's Jews is how unreconstructed they are in their stereotypical appearances and actions. These are not merely anti-Semitic images; these are classically anti-Semitic images."

The attacks from Wieseltier and Krauthammer came in response not only to the movie's release, but also to several articles by their fellow neo-cons, who previewed the movie and praised it as a major artistic achievement neither intended nor likely to provoke anti-Semitism.

In its current issue, American Enterprise, the monthly publication of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), for example, published two reviews hailing the movie. One is by nationally syndicated culture critic Michael Medved, who admitted The Passion was "a difficult film for any religiously committed Jew to watch" - Medved is an Orthodox Jew - but argued it "pointedly avoids ... inflammatory stereotypes".

"The high priest and his followers most certainly come across as vicious, self-important and bloodthirsty, but they seem motivated by pomposity, arrogance and insecurity rather than religious corruption or ethnic curse," wrote Medved, who attacked Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for denouncing the movie before its release. His article was titled "Crucifying Mel Gibson".

An even more effusive review was published in Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. "It is the most powerful movie I have ever seen," enthused Michael Novak, a longtime Catholic neo-con based at AEI.

He agreed The Passion "will not be easy for Jews to watch", but insisted Gibson's depiction was fully consistent with Vatican II teachings and "on the whole ... softens the Jewish elements of the Gospels' story and ... places the onus [for his crucifixion] on the Romans" - an observation that has been widely disputed by other reviewers.

The movie "is not divisive or dangerous for Jews", Novak asserted.

While the debate over whether a film is anti-Semitic might appear relatively trivial, that it is taking place within the neo-conservative movement is not at all irrelevant. Throughout the movement's roughly 35-year history, the "Jewish factor", as Mark Gerson, author of the adulatory The Neo-Conservative Vision labeled it, marked the most important difference between neo-cons and other conservatives.

In his 1995 hagiography, Gerson wrote that neo-conservatives - Jewish and gentile - moved to the right largely out of anger over the perceived failure of liberals adequately to defend Israel and other domestic "Jewish" priorities after the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict.

As a result, they often depicted their enemies - mostly liberals and leftists - as "anti-Semitic", or, in the case of other Jews, as "self-haters".

"The United Nations was anti-Semitic, the Third World was anti-Semitic, the communists were anti-Semitic, affirmative action was anti-Jewish if not anti-Semitic ... the new left was anti-Jew and probably anti-Semitic, and vast sectors of the left might as well be anti-Semitic, having decided that Jews were no longer victims and sided with the terrorist enemies of Israel," Gerson, a neo-con himself, wrote.

Conversely, neo-cons have often ignored or excused the anti-Semitism of their right-wing allies, including leaders of the Christian Right such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, whose staunch support for Israel (based on a particular interpretation of the Bible) generally trumped their anti-Semitic theology and prejudices.

As Irving Kristol, the godfather of neo-conservatism, once wrote about the fundamentalists' belief that Jews who did not convert were damned, "it is their theology, but it is our Israel".

While many neo-conservatives probably would have ignored The Passion had it been directed exclusively to the small, traditionalist, pre-Vatican II Catholic constituency of the kind that Gibson and his far more outspoken father hail from, the fact that he marketed it aggressively to Christian fundamentalists through their churches and Christian Right leaders such as Robertson - with whom the neo-cons have aligned themselves - threatens to raise new questions about their political judgment, particularly among US Jews, most of whom have remained liberal.

The distinctly negative turn that neo-conservative reviews of The Passion have taken since its release suggests that a process of rethinking might already be under way within neo-con ranks.

In a remarkable review published in Sunday's Post, Gertude Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol's wife and an influential neo-con in her own right, declined to accuse Gibson explicitly of anti-Semitism but proposed a "thought experiment" to put his movie in perspective.

"How would we feel if a Hollywood producer (a Hollywood so notoriously populated by Jews) made a film, in the same 'over the edge' spirit vaunted by Gibson, dramatizing another historical event - the auto-da-fe in Spain in February 1481, for example, in which six men and six women conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity) were tortured and burned alive at the stake, while richly robed prelates triumphantly presided over the scene?

"Such a film, taking its cue from Gibson, might utilize all the devices of violence, sadism and malignity that he has deployed so skillfully," Himmelfarb said.

Another possibility, she suggested, was a film about the First Crusade and its spectacularly bloody slaughter of the Muslim residents of Jerusalem, as produced and directed by a Muslim.

"Some of us, in recent times, have come to respect, even welcome, religious enthusiasm - to welcome it in the public square as well as in church," she went on. "But not if it were to take this form, exploiting violence, ferocity and sadism in the cause of religion."

But other neo-cons, including Medved, still insist that Jews should not attack the movie as anti-Semitic because it risks alienating Christian fans, who are needed to confront more dangerous enemies.

Anti-Israeli sentiment and recent anti-Semitic attacks in Europe, wrote Mark Steyn, North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group in an article in Monday's Washington Times, "should ... remind Jews of the current sources of the world's oldest hatred, not just the Islamic world, where talk of killing them all is part of the wallpaper, but the radical secularists of modern-day Europe".

"If Jewish groups think Mel Gibson's movie and evangelical Christians are the problem, they're picking fights they don't need," Steyn added.

(Inter Press Service)

the debate over whether the movie is anti-Semitic

There is no "debate." It is a fiction manufactured by the ungodly in an attempt to dilute the movie's message and distract viewers. Any anti-Semitism is a projection of the watcher's own shortcomings. So let's put this tired argument to rest once and for all.

"How would we feel if a Hollywood producer (a Hollywood so notoriously populated by Jews) made a film, in the same 'over the edge' spirit vaunted by Gibson, dramatizing another historical event - the auto-da-fe in Spain in February 1481, for example, in which six men and six women conversos (Jewish converts to Christianity) were tortured and burned alive at the stake, while richly robed prelates triumphantly presided over the scene?

Uh, Gertrude, this may have been done already. Did you see the two Joan of Arc movies? All movies involving Catholics within the last 20 years portray the Church in a negative light. I can't think of a single positive movie.

And all this Anti Semitic Carping is enough to make one Anti-Semitic

Instead of being able to view the movie as a profession of their belief in their religion and its relionship thereof Christians now have to look at it for traces of Anti Semitism and or defend themselves against the charges

These people have done more to cause hard feelings between the Christain and Jewish communities than the movie ever would have if it would have at all

You know, I'm getting a little sick of these people, who are starting to sound like the Jesse Jacksons of the black movement. It is worth noting that Peter, a Jew, EVERY TIME he made a speech to the Jewish leaders, included the phrase, "Christ, WHOM YOU CRUCIFIED," or, "Jesus of Nazareth WHOM YOU MURDERED." Stephen (another Jew, as far as we know) said it in exactly the same way. Peter says this at least three times, maybe four or five. Trying to make a point?

These people have done more to cause hard feelings between the Christain and Jewish communities than the movie ever would have if it would have at all

'Divide and conquer'.

Just about once a day I read some piece by a liberal that tries to trump up some seemingly divisive non-issue to divide us and set us against one another. Since they've repeatedly demonstrated that they have no idea who we are and what we're about, they're ineffectual at least and comical at best

It is a fiction manufactured by the ungodly in an attempt to dilute the movie's message and distract viewers. Any anti-Semitism is a projection of the watcher's own shortcomings. So let's put this tired argument to rest once and for all.

Let's put to rest the writing off of the legitimate views of a thoughtful conservative like Charles Krauthammer. Sincere Jews can have a position on the message in The Passion that differs from yours. It is neither a shortcoming, nor are they "ungodly."

The pride of Christians in dismissing criticism of Gibson's work is glaring, and becoming more so.

It's important to view this article in context. The author of this piece, Jim Lobe, is a committed, leftist, anti-Bush commentator, who writes for Inter Press Service, a press agency that traffics in overwhelmingly anti-American "news" articles. He has a particular animus towards "neo-conservatives", and constantly spins conspiracy theories about the dark deeds of the Jews who, in his view, control the Bush administration behind the scenes. His venom is spewed via newspapers across the globe. See this this compilation of Jim Lobe anti-Bush hit pieces (follow the "more" link at the bottom of the page to see even more of his rants).

I do not see this movie as antisemitic, in intent or effect.

The high priest and his crowd are portrayed as vicious, self-important and bloodthirsty, but they seem motivated by pomposity, arrogance, insecurity, and corruption, but certainly not by some sort of "ethnic curse".

In fact, I don't find any reference to any sort of "ethnic curse" stated or implied.

The priests are portrayed as corrupt, the Romans who tormented Jesus not only as corrupt but as unimaginably brutal, sadistic, and viscious. Claudia, wife of Pilate, is gentle, kind, and just, and, by implication, other people, Roman, Jewish, and whatever, must also be. Many Jews in the crowd are gentle, kind, just, and horrified by what the Romans are doing. The heroes in the movie are Jews--Simon, Veronica, Mary Magdeleine, Mary--not to mention Jesus.

" Some of us, in recent times, have come to respect, even welcome, religious enthusiasm - to welcome it in the public square as well as in church," (Gertrude wrote).

Golly, how really, really good of Gertie to say that. Who woulda ever guessed Gert and her friends would "give us permission" and actually "allow religious enthusiasm".......in public, no less.

I mean, considering the very aggressive---and very successful---attempts to remove every vestige of Christianity from public view.....prayers in school, at sports events, at school graduations.....Christmas displays....Ten Commandment monuments.....and so on and so forth ad infintum, ad nauseaum.....Gert's words come as really, really noteworthy.

Stunned by Gertrude's generosity, I can only say, " Thanks, but no thanks. Keep your permission slip. We don't need you or anyone else to 'allow us to display religious enthusiasm.' "

Gert thinks she's seen religious enthusiasm, eh? She ain't seen nuttin yet.

Good morning, Deacon:

AmChurchian lover of the National antiCatholic Reporter that you are, we won't be losing any sleep over whether you will be expressing any Christian pride, now will we?

Krauthammer is entitled to make a fool of himself as are you. We are entitled to react to each of you making fools of yourselves as well, as we were entitled to react as we will to Pat Buchanan's self-destruction.

Small wonder you are such a supporter of Hubba Hubba Hubbard and the curious activities of his Albany diocesan crew. Anything to discredit the actual Faith or dilute it. A good analogy would be some organization purporting to be Jewish but denying the truth of the Holocaust.

If Krauthammer wants to lose it over a cinematic rendition of the New Testament, fine. He can be judged accordingly. The confusion of the article is that somehow the assertion of a manly American foreign policy will be diluted by Krauthammer's views.

There is room for criticism of the film as a cinematic event. There is certainly room for religious disagreement by those who do not regard the New Testament as Scripture. The results in practical political standing for Krauthammer in attacking Christianity are approximately the same as the wages of Pat Buchanan in questioning the extent of the Holocaust or attacking American alliance with Israel. Conservatives will support Israel with or without alliance with Krauthammer or Buchanan or that matter. It is the right thing to do.

There was an interesting TV dramatization recently about, among other things, Pope Leo X (Giovanni de Medici), a scurrilous character if ever there was one. It could be considered anti-Catholic, I suppose, but I didn't see it that way. It exposed corruption in the Church at that time, but I saw it as exposing the tendency toward corruption in people in general. I saw the corruption of Caiphus et al. as essentially the same.

I'm neither Catholic nor Jewish (although my wife is Catholic). I have great respect for both religions. Corrupting influences are omnipresent, and some people are corruptable.

I don't see either of these dramatizations as an indictment or a criticism of Catholics or Jews but merely a depiction of the way people are--or can be and can choose not to be.

re: Any anti-Semitism is a projection of the watcher's own shortcomings.)))

Mau-mauing--riding an issue to get face time, wearing a hair-shirt that one has not earned. What was shocking, though, were how many Jewish conservative leaders (Himmelfarb starts off her WP article by admitting she hadn't seen the movie) who grandstanded.

There are very few evangelical Christians on any of the neo-con magazines--there may actually be NONE--I don't know of any. Yet evangelicals make up well over half of conservative Americans. The magazines are strictly country-club NOKD--

The neocons are overwhelmingly Mid-Atlantic Seaboard and urban--they do not relate to most of America. Nothing has shown this any more clearly than the "going off the deep end" reaction to the Passsion. Doing the junket from DC to NYC to the Hamptons won't tell them much about America--and maybe it's time to go shopping for some new pundits. I'd like to see conservatives take their media "dollars" and "eyes" elsewhere.

As ticket sales for the Australian superstar-filmmaker's gory, blood-drenched cinematic interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life surpassed the US$200 million mark less than two weeks after its Ash Wednesday release, the debate over whether the movie is anti-Semitic in its intent or effect has unexpectedly split the neo-cons who, in pursuit of their strong support for Israel's security, have made common cause with the Christian Right for some 25 years.

LOL

"unexpectedly"

*snort*

No doubt this one has separated "the men from the boys," so to speak.

There is very little "con" about many, if not most, "neos."

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.