Stand for values, families told. (Rick Santorium: Mel's movie "will absolutely change your life")

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 8/03/03 | ANNIE CALOVICH

[MaryFromMichigan]

I already read the book- can't wait for the movie....!

[gr8eman]

Santorum Rocks!

[syriacus]

I was listening to "Religion on the Line" today. It is a call-in radio show with a priest and a rabbi (today, anyway).

I can't think of a good thing they said about Mel's movie.

I'd heard that Mel's movie really closely follows the Biblical account of Christ's passion, so I had to laugh at the silliness of a lot of the negative things that the hosts were saying.

We haven't seen the movie... but...

If Gibson has nothing to hide, why won't he allow a prescreening by a diverse group of religious leaders?

Why is this movie coming out now?

The movie is insensitive

If Christianity is a religion of love, how can a movie like this be Christian?

Gibson comes from a background with a father who is a religious extremist

etc.

I think they squeezed all those objections (and many more) into about 5 minutes.

Next they'll be telling us it's bad to read the Bible.

[DPB101]

Grrrr.....

The frenzy of Foxman and Hier to allow them to have imput into the film has little to do with what they think Mel is producing.

It is all about precedent. They want to be able to put their code of approval on everything a Christian writes or produces. Foxman boasts all the time about how the producers of Passion Plays have "worked with him" on their scripts.

[Map Kernow]

Thanks for your posting of this article. We need to keep this issue in the eye of all Americans of good will, Christian and Jewish, who are dedicated to freedom of religious expression and opposed to censorship. Specifically, we need to put counter-pressure on the media to ensure that Mel's film gets distribution, since I'm told there's strong pressure behind the scenes from the "usual suspects" on Fox to turn down a distribution deal for "The Passion," and that Fox is now equivocating about what its intentions are.

[syriacus]

Thanks for the insight.

[Do Be]

This movie isn't going to be released until April of next year. With the publicity it's already getting, it will be a huge box office draw.

Mel's becoming one of my heroes.

[AAABEST]

Ping to #6.

[veronica]

You really need to read a bit more carefully. This is what the poster posted --

I was listening to "Religion on the Line" today. It is a call-in radio show with a priest and a rabbi (today, anyway). I can't think of a good thing they said about Mel's movie.

I ask you once again - why is it you focus only on Jews who have questioned this film??

[Map Kernow]

The issue is not the religion of the proponents or opponents of the film, but the right of Abe Foxman to peremptorily insist on "vetting" a film based on Christian scriptural narratives on the pretext that otherwise the film "might" incite anti-Semitism. Many others besides Foxman and his coterie, including distinguished Jewish Americans like Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, and now David Klinghoffer in the Forward, have come out for letting the film be distributed without such disguised censorship.

Mel Gibson is not trying to provoke a crisis in Jewish-Christian relations in America----Abe Foxman and his supporters are. The reason is very simple and was alluded to in Klinghoffer's article yesterday: money. By scaring ADL contributors with smears about possible pogroms from the movie's release, Foxman "shakes them down" for funds.

[DPB101]

I believe one of those you cite mentioned how unthinkable the practice of vetting would be if the situation were reversed.

Veronica, Why must we explain the obvious? Why the incitement and baiting? Anyone should be allowed to express their faith in whatever manner they wish without answering questions of when they stopped beating their wife and how do we know they aren't advocating others beat their wives?

[veronica]

I don't see Abe Foxman mentioned in this article, do you??

And I am aware that many, including David Horowitz, an acquaintance of mine actually, has defended Mel Gibson's right to make a movie of his vision of Jesus's last hours. Just as Martin Scorcese had a right to his vision of Jesus's life.

FYI - many in the Church have questioned this film as well, in fact I have read that it was some folks in the Church who leaked the early script in the first place.

Now as I have posted before, Mel Gibson's film, his vision, will be open to criticism and/or praise, just like any other film and to do so, is not to deny him "the right to practice his religion." It's a movie after all. Nothing put in the marketplace for public consumption is sacrosanct.

[veronica]

Veronica, Why must we explain the obvious? Why the incitement and baiting?

I was pinged to this thread, which is just one of many you have posted on this subject, for what purpose, I believe is quite obvious, considering your track record here.

[Cachelot]

I don't see Abe Foxman mentioned in this article, do you??

There's a simple explanation. If you look inside Larry's skull, you'll find this engraved all over the inner surface:

JOOOS - ABE FOXMAN - JOOOS - "WEISENTHAL" - JOOOS - KOSHERTAX - JOOOS - ABE FOXMAN - JOOOS - ZOG --....

You get the idea. It's a pathology.

[dennisw]

It's a big surprise from DPB101. Usually his threads zero in on a Jew who dares to criticize Mel's opus. Or a Jew who opposes something else near and dear to DB101's heart such as Senator Joe. DB knows whereof I speak.

I'm Jewish so I'm not looking forward to Mel's upcoming movie on Christ. For the simple reason that He is not a figure in my religion. The movie probably doesn't hurt Jews but it has served as a rallying point for the many freepers who want to slam Jewish critics of it. Get their rocks off on liberal Jews. I'm sure there are many Christians who have been uncharitable to this movie but DB will not be posting on this. Correct DB? Yes, correct.

[dennisw]

Veronica, Why must we explain the obvious? Why the incitement and baiting?

Hmmm... Pot, kettle, black. You do a fair amount of inciting and baiting yourself.

[Map Kernow]

It's a movie after all. Nothing put in the marketplace for public consumption is sacrosanct.

Well, I think we agree on the most important point. The movie should not be denied distribution. If it's wrong doctrinally...if it's bad artistically....even if it has elements deemed "anti-Semitic" by some critics...let it be subject to civil, constructive, democratic debate after the film's release.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Santorum Rocks!

No, he is forbidden to rock. He might gospel, a little. ;)

[Map Kernow]

I'm sure there are many Christians who have been uncharitable to this movie but DB will not be posting on this.

No one but Foxman and his supporters to my knowledge has raised concerns about "anti-Semitism" in the film. No one but Foxman & Co. to my knowledge has insisted that the film's script be reviewed and vetted before production and release. No one but Foxman & Co. to my knowledge has tried to insinuate that anyone speaking up for the film's release and against such strong-arm, censorship tactics are motivated by anti-Semitism.

There's a simple solution to this: Let the film be released. Go see it, or don't go see it, as you choose. If the former, offer your criticism, if any. If the latter, live and be well. Hakuna matata, dude.