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

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

[AD from SpringBay]

What a bunch of shit the ADL is full of. Dung flingers and lawyers - each and every one.

[wideawake]

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.

There are any number of apostate theologians and spoiled priests (like the Boston Globe's Jim Carroll) willing to oppose the NT "as Catholics."

Foxman has all the useful idiots he needs.

[dennisw]

Gibson's Passion
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
Note: This op-ed originally appeared in the New York Sun on August 4, 2003.
Posted: August 4, 2003
Discussions about Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie "The Passion" have taken a disturbing turn. Rather than focusing on an effort to find out whether Mr. Gibson is making a movie on the death of Jesus that is consistent with church teachings and free of the anti-Semitism that haunted passion dramas for centuries, the very raising of questions is now being depicted as a part of the culture wars that have overwhelmed American society in recent years.

Movie critic Michael Medved put the issue in the context of "liberal activists, who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." And Kathie Lee Gifford writes that Mr. Gibson "is being so tormented for something that he has every right to do - as an artist in a free country where he is supposed to have the freedom to express and practice his own faith."

This is a strange and unfortunate reaction to the legitimate questions that have been raised. Let us remember that the Catholic church itself and Pope John Paul II, hardly a liberal, revolutionized centuries-old teachings about Jews and Judaism related to the death of Jesus. Recognition by the Vatican of the devastating effects of church teachings about Jews - blaming Jews for the crucifixion, delegitimizing Judaism as a religion, not speaking clearly against anti-Semitism - created new Church doctrine which has transformed Catholic-Jewish relations.

Whether one is conservative or liberal, indeed whatever ones views concerning which is best for American society, the issue of portraying the death of Jesus as a Jewish crime has long been rejected.

Why have we been raising questions as to whether Mr. Gibson's movie may be returning to outmoded, dangerous views of the Jewish role in the death of Jesus?

First, because there has been a long history of the passion story i.e., the trials, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, being interpreted as holding the Jewish people responsible for killing Jesus.

According to this interpretation, both the Jews at the time of Jesus and the Jewish people for all time bear a divine curse for the sin of deicide. Throughout nearly 1,900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred and violence against Jews of Europe and America, and various forms of anti-Semitic expression. Historically, Holy Week (the week leading up to Easter Sunday) was a period when Jews were most vulnerable and when Christians perpetrated some of the worst violence against their Jewish neighbors.

In 1965, at the Second Vatican Council in Rome, the Roman Catholic Church took formal steps to correct this interpretation of the passion. In its document, Nostra Aetate, the Church officially repudiated both the deicide charge and all forms of anti-Semitism. Most Protestant churches followed suit, and since 1965 many Christians have worked cooperatively with Jews to correct anti-Semitic interpretations within Christian theology. Understanding the influential role that passion plays have exercised in the spread of anti-Semitism, the Catholic Church today urges great caution in all dramatic presentations of the passion to ensure that they not furnish any impetus for anti-Semitic attitude or behavior.

In 1988, the Catholic United States Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs issued a pamphlet, "Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion," which stresses that passion plays must avoid caricatures of Jews and falsely opposing Jews and Jesus. It quotes Pope John Paul II's statement that, "Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objective manner, free from prejudices and without and offenses." The pamphlet concludes that correct Catholic teaching of the passion is one that portrays Jews accurately, sensitively and positively, because "the Church and the Jewish people are linked together essentially on the level of identity."

Second, a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars of the first century examined a draft of the screenplay of the film. In the words of Paula Fredrickson, one of the scholars, "the script, when we got it, shocked us." She noted that the scholars "pinpointed its historical errors and - again, since Mr. Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism - its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation."

She went on to say: "That script - and, on the evidence, the film -- presents neither a true rendition of the gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest.… The true historical framing of Mr. Gibson's script is neither early first century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the last first-century Mediterranean dispora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe."

Third, because Mr. Gibson, a "traditionalist" Catholic, has expressed strong criticisms of the modern church and is supportive of views of church policy that question or reject the many 20th-century changes, including the revolution in attitudes toward Jews beginning with Nostra Aetate in 1965.

This combination of history, an early version of the script, and reports about Mr. Gibson's views understandably raised concerns. We have not, however, reached conclusions about the film because we haven't seen it and because the producers say they have made changes. We have, instead, asked the producers for an opportunity to see a preview of the film. If our concerns would turn out to be unjustified, we will be eager to say so. If problems remain, we will be happy share our suggestions with Mr. Gibson.

In a world when anti-Semitism has undergone a frightening resurgence, one of the hopeful perspectives is the fact that the Church has changed so dramatically. We urge the makers of "The Passion" to continue this important progress that has benefited Christians and Jews.

[leftcoaster]

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.

Not to mention Saving Private Ryan , The Longest Day, etc. No complaints about whether the events depicted really did take place, just complaints that the ignorant masses who see the depiction might be duped into committing another "Hate Crime".

[Alberta's Child]

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?

The line from the Nicene Creed, "He was crucified under Pontius Pilate" was not intended to assign individual responsibility for the death of Christ -- it was intended to place the crucifixion in the proper historical context by emphasizing the fact that the events surrounding the crucifixion did, in fact, occur.

[wideawake]

Let us remember that the Catholic church itself and Pope John Paul II, hardly a liberal, revolutionized centuries-old teachings about Jews and Judaism related to the death of Jesus.

This kind of talk is insulting to Catholics.

(1) The Pope did not "revolutionize" anything - it is not in the nature of his office to do any such thing. He corrected scurrilous misuses of Church teaching - he never "revolutionized" Church teaching one whit.

(2) The Church maintains now, and has always maintained, that it is the guilt of everyone's sins that crucified Jesus. We are all responsible - the core texts of the Mass that every Catholic everywhere has celebrated for the past 17 centuries does not mention Jews as culpable, but the worshippers gathered at Mass as culpable for the death of the Lord.

(3) The Catholic Church has never "delegitimized" Judaism as a religion. The Catholic Church, like any other faith, sees itself as possessing the fullness of truth about God, but the only other religion the Catholic Church recognizes as having been the one true religion of God is Judaism.

Misrepresenting the Pope and Catholic doctrine is not helpful in interreligious dialogue.

[duckln]

This kind of talk is insulting to Catholics.

Amen. The Foxmans ,including foul mouths like Imus and Turner, have been demonizing the Catholic Church, its leaders and parishioners for the last 50 years +. They are the 'anti' bigots.

What in the world did the 'Passion' have to do with Jewish slavery in Egypt, the mass suicide at Mosada, the Palistinian 'intifada', or the hatred of the Muslims?

The Jews don't have a problem with the Christians, IMO, it's the other way around. They have an agenda and power in the 'media', Hollywood, and in Washington to relentlessly keep up the pressure. And they wonder why they have 'enemies'?

[mewzilla]

The ADL is concerned about a lot of things. Click here to see one of them.

[SJackson]

So many sources you could post that from, why link to a Holocaust denial site, The International Campaign for Real History?

[Drew68]

I haven't counted but I'd guess there are no less than 50 threads on FR talking about how "The Passion" is potentially anti-semetic.

Every one of these stories quotes the same group: the ADL.

Is the ADL the only entity that has a problem with this movie? They sure are getting a lot of press over it.

[Porterville]

Oh my God!!! The Jews were involved in the death of Jesus??? Horrible, this is just horrible, we'll have to stop giving so much money to Israel and take back the newspapers..

[wideawake]

I think you simplify the situation.

Truly faithful Jews who follow their own religion with faith and obedience - men like Michael Medved and Daniel Lapin, for example - are not out there criticizing Gibson or the Catholic Church.

They observe that there are theological differences between Catholics and Jews and leave it at that.

Abraham Foxman doesn't actually care at all about Judaism as a religious commitment, he only cares about Judaism as a political tool. Like pretty much every political pressure organization (SPLC, anyone?) the ADL is a business and controversy is their product. As long as Foxman can invent enough anti-Semitism to inspire people to make contributions to the ADL, then he's happy.

Neither is Foxman devoid of long-term thinking. There are approximately eight million Jews in America. Less than a million of them are observant of the Torah. The rest, like Foxman, are more or less indifferent to the religious claims of Judaism. Foxman probably fears that many non-religiously committed Jews may be converted to Christianity by such a powerful film as Gibson's.

As you recall, Foxman led the charge against the Southern Baptist Convention because of its stated policy of witnessing Christ to Jews.

American Jews have basically two choices: become more observant of Judaism or become gradually assimilated into either Christianity or modernity and lose their distinctive identity.

Foxman wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to be Jewish without taking Judaism seriously, and he realizes that pure identity politics without any supernatural aspect is not very attractive to many American Jews.

[L.N. Smithee]

Not to mention Saving Private Ryan , The Longest Day, etc. No complaints about whether the events depicted really did take place, just complaints that the ignorant masses who see the depiction might be duped into committing another "Hate Crime".

Come to think of it, the San Francisco Police Department mentioned something about beefing up their presence outside theaters where Pearl Harbor was playing, just in case some inflamed patriotic moviegoers were so revved up about what the Japanese did to the USA fifty-freaking-seven years before, they might start being violent to Asian-Americans.

[Nachum]

While I sympathize with your point of view, I think that the motivation of Foxman here is fear. Jews have been the victims of violence from Christians over the centuries.

Will the film motivate mobs of Christians to attack Jews?

No, but those who have lived through attacks, or have parents and grandparents who have lived through attacks still have a great deal of fear of it.

It was less than 50 years ago in this country that people wrote deeds in their homes that it could not be sold to a Jew or Black. Jews are now being attacked all over Europe again. Perhaps the ADL and this film are at cross purposes. I don't believe that Gibson's intention was to create hate and I don't believe that Foxman's purpose is to attack Christianity.

I have been called a Christ killer on Free Republic. I grew up around people who were perfectly capable of expressing their hatred physically. Maybe you can call it freedom of speech. I call it shouting fire in a crowded theater.

[ZULU]

Well, if you are a Christian, you know what killed Christ was really our sins. The Jewish authorities were merely the means and as culpable as a gun in a homicide.

The Romans were in the same category. Also, "Romans" did not necessarily equate to Italians in the early Imperial period. A large number of legions had been recruited from Spain, Gaul, the Balkans, etc, by 33 A.D., although the officer class may have remained mainly Italian for a while.

One of Augustus Caesar's "reforms" was to "free" Roman citizens from the responsibility of serving in the military, one of the causes of the ultimate collapse of the Empire.

As for the ADL, they are as selective in their personal outrage as the ACLU. They have never attacked anti-Christian movies. Their responses to outrages like "The Last Temptation of Christ" were that if you didn't like the picture, don't buy the ticket. My suggestion to the ADL is that they follow their own advice here.

[AnnaZ]

I really think I've hit my snapping point with these people. I really try to keep things polite on this forum, but from one acronym to another...

 

Hey, ADL, STFU!

[AnnaZ]

P.S. I used reason and restraint the first fifteen times these, and other, crybabies' "criticisms" were posted.

[Natural Law]

Enough already. The ADL is largely irrelevant today. Giving credence to their self serving and self perpetuating prattle is giving them more attention than they deserve!

[churchillbuff]

I think that the motivation of Foxman here is fear.

If it's fear, it's irrational. There was anti-Irish bigotry in this country, anti-black bigotry, anti-Chinese bigotry, anti-Japanese bigotry, and yes, anti-Jewish bigotry - - - and I would blame none of it on the Gospels (but, to the contrary, on people who never bought into the Gospel message of love thy neighbor).

We cannot allow censorship in this country based on people's irrational fear. We cannot allow the Christian story, and the Christian message - - or any other religion's story or message - - to be hounded out of the public square because some people have an irrational fear of (or hostility toward) religion. As I said in my first post, the Soviet Union banned or censored Christianity. Neither Foxman nor anybody else, of any background, should be allowed to do that in this free country

[Alouette]

Hey, ADL, STFU

DITTO