"ADL Concerned Mel Gibson's 'Passion' Will Fuel Anti-Semitism If Released in Present Form"

ADL via usnewswire ^ | Aug. 11, 03 | Anti-Defamation League

[churchillbuff]

The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.

-- The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity;

-- The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate

-- The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism

Isn't this pretty much a description of the Gospels themselves? So now the Gospels can't be depicted unless they're made PC?

Also, does this mean "The Ten Commandments" can't be shown anymore, because it shows some Israelites rebelling against God's will -- infuriating Moses (Charlton Heston)?

And what about the Passion's depiction of Roman soldiers brutalizing Christ? Shouldn't this be censored in deference to modern day Italians?

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I get truly scared when we're being told that the Christian Gospels are not to be allowed to be depicted on film without censorship. That's the way things were in the Soviet Union - - it shouldn't be the case in a free country.

[churchillbuff]

Isn't this pretty much a description of the Gospels themselves? So now the Gospels can't be depicted unless they're made PC?

I don't mean to say that the Gospels are hostile to Jews and Judaism - - only that they portray a certain group of people who happen to be Jewish, in a bad light (along with a certain group of Romans or Italians) -- - while also CELEBRATING A JEWISH MAN AS SON OF GOD AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, and also celebrating his JEWISH MOTHER, and JEWISH SYMPATHIZERS SUCH AS JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA, JOHN, PETER, and all the rest.

[wideawake]

Wideawake Concerned Abe Foxman's Idiocy Will Fuel Anti-Semitism If Expressed in Current Form

[WhiteGuy]

I'm with you......................

This is an American film.

Freedom of speech applies here. Period.

[PaulJ]

So now the Gospels can't be depicted unless they're made PC?

That's exactly right. It's not so much Gibson's film the ADL is opposed to, as it is the New Testament.
Will the idiocy ever end?

[NativeNewYorker]

I've not seen the movie, but THIS Jew says SHUT UP ADL.

Thanks. I feel better already.

[Alberta's Child]

1. Anyone who is an anti-Semite today will not need this movie to reinforce their bigotry.

2. Anyone who is not an anti-Semite today isn't going to go out and scrawl swastikas on synagogues after seeing this movie.

The problem with the ADL is that their basic premise is so flawed that it's comical -- they've taken a 1930s Warsaw setting and "Photo-Shopped" it into the U.S. in the year 2003, and it simply doesn't work that way.

What is most preposterous is that the ADL has decided to include their own New Testament (LOL!) "expertise" as a basis for their opposition to this movie.

[churchillbuff]

By the way, the creed we say in my church says Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate". No mention of the Jews.

[rodeo-mamma]

People who are anti-jewish are usually white trash alcholics, and Christianity is a low priority anyway.
White-trash people don't waste their time going to see movies about Jesus. They are too busy getting drunk in the trailer-parks, kicking the dog, and beating the wife.

[L.N. Smithee]

-- The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion...

-- The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate

Would Mr. Foxman like to enlighten us, and tell us for what reason Christ was executed, if not at the behest of the Pharisees, and a crowd that was crying for his death and the freedom of a violent criminal? Is there a Jewish historical perspective that they can show us that leads them to the conclusion that the Gospels as we know them are "historical errors?"

Does Foxman et al think that somehow, the authors of the Gospels -- ALL OF THEM JEWS -- conspired to cover up the killing of Jesus by the agents of Caesar, deciding to twist history for all time by blaming the high priest and his minions?

Wow, this really surprised me. I thought that the ADL was all about answering Holocaust deniers and spreaders of specious Talmudic translations, as well as fighting against discrimination in employment, housing, and all that other good and decent stuff. I didn't know they were also battling to tear to shreds the scrolls that the Bible is based on in order to spare their collective reputation!

[Ohioan]

The ADL was set up to fill a Fabian Socialist purpose, very similar to that of the NAACP, and analogous to that served by the ACLU, the other two, best known, long-standing Fabian efforts. As the NAACP set out to marginalize American Negroes, by involving them in confrontation, the ADL set out to marginalize American Jews by first exaggerating the actual level of anti-Jewish sentiments among other Americans, overreacting to what were supposed to be anti-Jewish sentiments in order to actually provoke the very thing they claimed to be fighting, and using the reactions provoked to raise money for more and more effective alienation.

This is the flip-side of the same truly vicious "ping-pong" game, that the Naxis and other German Socialists used over a long period to destroy the once respected position of German Jews, and set the stage for some pretty gruesome actions.

Clearly, this attack is part of those well developed tactics. It should be considered in the context of such things as the ADL's attack on any group that disparages homosexual conduct; its attacks on any group that identifies with traditional Americans rights to private firearms; with groups that advocate public displays of traditional religious values. Certainly, nothing could be clearer than that the ADL does not stand for traditional Judaism, when they endorse conduct that the Mosaic code considered an "abomination," or oppose public display of the crowning achievement of the founder of the modern Jewish religion--i.e., what he brought down from Mt. Sinai.

It is long past time that people stopped cowtowing to Fabian Socialist antics. An enormous amount of damage has been done to our Society by the long-standing Fabian attacks. Continuing to be cowed by their name-calling, rather than rationally addressing them, serves no decent purpose, whatsoever.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[churchillbuff]

The ADL was set up to fill a Fabian Socialist purpose,

The ADL is like a lot of non-profits that require keeping people worked up in order to keep checks flowing in. I think they have a natural incentive to be overly sensitive and sounding alarms even in cases where an objective observer would be skeptical.

[zarf]

This Jewboy normally digs Abe and the ADL....in this case, Abe's gotta get outta the way and shut up.

[churchillbuff]

Does Foxman et al think that somehow, the authors of the Gospels -- ALL OF THEM JEWS -- conspired to cover up the killing of Jesus by the agents of Caesar

Actually, it's argued by some scholars that the writers of the Gospels were trying to get the Romans off their backs, so they over-emphasized the involvement of Jewish authorities in Christ's fate. But that's scholarly speculation, and the point remains: Is it not allowed in this day and age to do a film that portrays the Gospels as written? If not, we're veering in the direction of tyrannies, such as Stalin's, where Christian messages were outlawed or censored.

[Ohioan]

That's exactly right. It's not so much Gibson's film the ADL is opposed to, as it is the New Testament. Will the idiocy ever end?

As I pointed out, in effect in #11, they are equally opposed to the Old Testament--or how else do you explain their lining up with those who would force acceptance of conduct considered an "abomination," and their long-standing opposition (with their ACLU allies), against Old Testament religious displays.

Once their Fabian Socialist role is fully understood, people will stop walking on egg shells, whenever they pontificate on matters such as the subject here.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

The ADL is like a lot of non-profits that require keeping people worked up in order to keep checks flowing in. I think they have a natural incentive to be overly sensitive and sounding alarms even in cases where an objective observer would be skeptical.

There is that aspect, but it is subsidiary to their Fabian Socialist role. Look, they have worked closely with the ACLU on a very wide variety of subjects, which had nothing to do with "Defamation" against Jews, since the latter was founded in 1920. Indeed, the only time that they ever seemed to split on something, was when the ACLU supported a costumed march of "American Nazis" into a Jewish suburb of Chicago, about 30 years ago. (That was a pure 'photo op,' to serve the sought after image of the ACLU, which is every bit as phoney as that of the ADL.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[DPB101]

What about Project Megiddo? That was even worse than this. Clinton law enforcement demonized Christians.

[L.N. Smithee]

"We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

Saying "We are deeply concerned" that The Passion will 'fuel anti-Semitism' is as stupid as implying that Schindler's List might have caused anti-German sentiment.

By the way, the creed we say in my church says Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate". No mention of the Jews.

Why not? Is not the rejection of Jesus by the majority of the Jewish people mentioned constantly in writings of the early Christians (Paul, Luke, Peter, etc.)? As long as there are no prejudgments or acrimonious implications, what would be wrong with saying that the Jews were complicit in Christ's execution?

[L.N. Smithee]

Actually, it's argued by some scholars that the writers of the Gospels were trying to get the Romans off their backs, so they over-emphasized the involvement of Jewish authorities in Christ's fate.

What do these "scholars" allege was Rome's motivation for killing Jesus? IOW, if Foxman and his ADL buddies were to create a movie about Jesus' death the way they see it, would they be able to base a scene in which Pilate conspired to do away with Christ on anything but their imaginations?