Posted on 08/01/2003 9:17:06 AM PDT by DPB101
"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.
These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."
"Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Fears about what this ‘‘truth’’ will be have been fanned by the knowledge that Gibson bankrolls a traditionalist Catholic church unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese.
Traditionalist Catholicism is the name given to a small splinter movement that rejects the Second Vatican Council — which, among other reforms, cleared the Jews of deicide.
The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, which have lavished praise on Gibson and his project, reported in March in an adulatory interview with the star that the film’s sources included the writings of two nuns: Mary of Agreda, a 17th-century Spaniard, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early-19th-century German.
Only after Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, among others, spoke up about the nuns’ history of anti-Semitic writings did a Gibson flack disown this provenance.
Emmerich’s revelations include learning that Jews had strangled Christian children to procure their blood. It’s hard to imagine a scenario that bald turning up in ‘‘The Passion.’’ Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles). Its real tinderbox effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism has metastasized since Sept. 11, and where Gibson is arguably more of an icon (as his production company is named) than he is at home.
In recent weeks, Gibson has started screening a rough cut of his film to invited audiences, from evangelicals in Colorado Springs to religious leaders in Pennsylvania to celebrities in Washington. But the attendees are not always ecumenical. At the Washington screening, they included Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne, Linda Chavez and David Kuo, the deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiative.
The screening guest list did include a token Jew: that renowned Talmudic scholar Matt Drudge. No other Jewish members of the media were present, said one journalist who was there.
That journalist must remain unnamed as a result of signing a confidentiality agreement — a practice little seen at movie screenings. Since then, some of those present, including Drudge, have publicly expressed their enthusiasm for ‘‘The Passion.’’
If ‘‘The Passion’’ is kosher, couldn’t Gibson give Jews the same access to a Washington media screening, so they could see for themselves? Such inhospitality is not terribly Christian of him. One Jewish leader whose requests to see the film have been turned away is Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.
‘‘If you tell everyone they won’t see it until it’s ready, O.K.,’’ Foxman said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. ‘‘But what Gibson’s done is preselect those who’ll be his supporters. If the movie is a statement of love, as he says it is, why not show it to you or me?’’
When I addressed this question last week to the star’s press representative, Alan Nierob, he told me that the ADL was being kept out because it had gone public with its concerns — as indeed it had, once Foxman’s letter to Gibson about ‘‘The Passion’’ failed to net a meeting with the filmmaker or a screening three months after it had been sent.
When I asked to see ‘‘The Passion,’’ Nierob said The New York Times was a ‘‘low priority’’ because The Times Magazine had run an ‘‘inaccurate’’ article in March in which Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father and a prominent traditionalist Catholic author, was quoted as saying that the Vatican Council was ‘‘a Masonic plot backed by the Jews’’ and that the Holocaust was a charade. But in fact, neither Hutton nor Mel Gibson — nor anyone else — has contacted the magazine to challenge the accuracy of a single sentence in the article in the four months since its publication.
Eventually, Gibson’s film will have to face audiences he doesn’t cherry-pick. We can only hope that the finished product will not resemble the screenplay that circulated this spring. That script — which the Gibson camp has said was stolen but which others say was leaked by a concerned member of the star’s own company — received thumbs down from a panel of nine Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars who read it. They found that Jews were presented as ‘‘bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry,’’ reported The Jewish Week, which broke the story of the scholars’ report in June.
Perhaps ‘‘The Passion’’ bears little resemblance to that script. Either way, however, damage has been done: Jews have already been libeled by Gibson’s politicized rollout of his film. His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the ‘‘entertainment elite’’ (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie.
But based on what? According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ when Gibson went on O’Reilly’s show on Jan. 14 in January to defend himself against ‘‘any Jewish people’’ who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ or Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn’t yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.)
Whether the movie holds Jews of two millenniums ago accountable for killing Christ or not, the star’s pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Gibson. A similar animus can be found in a new book by one of Gibson’s most passionate defenders, the latest best seller published by the same imprint (Crown Forum) that gave us Ann Coulter’s ‘‘Treason.’’ In ‘‘Tales From the Left Coast,’’ James Hirsen writes, ‘‘The worldview of certain folks is seriously threatened by the combination of Christ’s story and Gibson’s talent.’’
Now who might those ‘‘certain folks’’ be? Since no one was criticizing ‘‘The Passion’’ when Hirsen wrote that sentence, you must turn elsewhere in the book to decode it. In one strange passage, the author makes a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan’s original name, Robert Zimmerman — a gratuitous motif in a tirade that is itself gratuitous in a book whose subtitle says its subject is ‘‘Hollywood stars.’’
Another chapter is about how ‘‘faith is often the subject of ridicule and negative portrayal’’ in Hollywood. One of the more bizarre examples Hirsen cites is ‘‘Sophie’s Choice,’’ in which ‘‘passages from the New Testament are quoted by Nazi officials in support of atrocities that were committed.’’
Now sectarian swords are being drawn. The National Association of Evangelicals, after a private screening of ‘‘The Passion,’’ released a statement last week saying, ‘‘Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel,’’ and implying that such support could vanish if Jewish leaders ‘‘risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.’’
Foxman says he finds that statement ‘‘obnoxious and offensive.’’
‘‘Here’s the first time we’ve heard that linkage: We support Israel, so shut up about anti-Semitism,’’ he added. ‘‘If that’s what support of Israel means, no thanks.’’
But the real question here is why Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile historical moment. It’s enough to make you pray for the second coming of Charlton Heston.
Wow, he's really pissed. Another whiner insisting he (and his people) are being insulted and using insults to make his point. Since when is preaching the Gospel equivalent to baiting Jews and sowing religious conflict??? Try a search in Amazon - there exists modern day, recent books by Jews denouncing Jesus and proving he is not the Messiah and worse. Where's the outrage? Wow. Would anyone believe or care that he is Catholic/Christian baiting?? Fragile historical moment?? Did I miss something? Are Christians at war with Jews??
Godspeed, Mel!! Everyone go see this film.
Uh, no.
Jesus, a Jew, was betrayed by Judas, a Jew, to the Sanhedrin, Jewish authority. When the Sanhedrin wanted to put Him to death, they turned to the Roman authorities since the Sanhedrin had no death penalty. The Roman authorities tried to offer Jesus back to the Jews and they chose Barrabas instead.
There are a couple of principles at work here. One is that Jesus came for the Jew, first, and the gentile, second. Even into the NT, everywhere they went, the Apostles preached of Jesus to the Jews first and, when rejected, to the gentiles. It's a repeated pattern. Jesus was killed by the Romans only as proxy for the Jews.
Second, as I posted above, the Jews paid a horrible price for their conduct. Just as it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, the Jews were punished for their part in Jesus's crucifixion. Yes, it was part of God's plan that Jesus had to suffer and die. However, it was still against His commandments and Moses's code that He should be killed. It's a bit of a paradox but it's also the heart of the predestination vs foreknowledge argument.
The Jews today aren't the targets of a film about 2,000 year old history. The Jews of then aren't either. If telling the truth is a "hit piece" then history has been outlawed.
The scary thing about Rich is millions of people are reading his column today. Many of them are delighted with it.
What liberal will write the next hit piece?
Molly Ivins? Joe Conason? Alan Dershowitz?
Maybe we should have a contest. Review the movie as Molly Ivins would. Or Maureen Dowd. Their styles are so predictable. A Noam Chomsky or Lyndon LaRouche parody review would be fun.
Exactly.
So what if they did? Ok, so Jews had Jesus put to death. Someone earlier mentioned the Germans and the holocaust. Christians had the crusades. Americans slaughtered native americans.
There is none without sin, not one. Rich' and other's complaints and shouts are but noise and distraction. They hope they are successful in discrediting this movie, Mel, and Christ as well. Notice the reference to some obscure "splinter" of Catholicism at the beginning. Hmmmm. EVERYONE watch this movie. You won't enjoy it, but you WILL be moved.
Reading only that, believing it, sharing it with others, sharing the hat - er - love. Not reading any other sources. Misled, drawing erroneous conclusions, intentionally or not. And the delight, oh the delight.
Maybe we should have a contest. Review the movie as Molly Ivins would. Or Maureen Dowd. Their styles are so predictable.
Hee hee. That could be fun. We could also have 'them' review "The Magdalene Sisters". Turnabout is fair play.
The Passion; Eschatological Racism or Hermeneutic Oppression?
By Noam ChomskyWith regard to the Mel Gibson's The Passion, since what is called The Passion is largely unfamiliar to me, let me replace it by "X," and see if I understand the argument against X. Let's consider several kinds of properties attributed to X:
First category. X is dominated by "the white male gender." It is "limited by cultural, racial and gender biases," and "establishes and perpetuates social organization with hidden political, social and economic purposes." X is "thoroughly embedded in capitalist colonialism," and doesn't "end racism or disrupt the patriarchy." X has been invoked by Christians to bring people to "embrace regimentation, murderous collectivization, and worse"; though no one mentions it, X has been used by Nazi ideologists for the same ends. X's dominance "has gone unchallenged." It has been "used to create new forms of control mediated through political and economic power." Ludicrous claims about X have been made by "state systems" which "used X for astoundingly destructive purposes...to create new forms of control mediated through political and economic power as it emerged in each system."
Conclusion: there is "something inherently wrong" with X. We must reject or transcend it, replacing it by something else; and we must instruct poor and suffering people to do so likewise. More generally, we must take a vow of silence and induce the world's victims to do so likewise since language and its use typically have all these properties, facts too well-known to discuss.1
If he genuinely wants people to stop "hating" Jews, he would do well to keep his own nasty mouth shut and stop provoking such a reaction!
He writes:
"the white male gender." It is "limited by cultural, racial and gender biases," and "establishes and perpetuates social organization with hidden political, social and economic purposes."
Doesn't this describe what he is doing exactly?? Isn't he writing about himself?? Oh what self loathing he must posess.
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.