Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legislator Tries to Censor Mel Gibson's 'The Passion'
NewsMax.com ^ | Aug. 27, 2003 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 08/27/2003 3:04:44 PM PDT by joobers

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...

Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003 Legislator Tries to Censor Mel Gibson's 'The Passion'

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind has planned a press conference Thursday to demand that 20th Century Fox not distribute Mel Gibson’s movie "The Passion,” says Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights.

Hikind asserts that the film "resurrects the age-old canard of deicide” and "can incite anti-Semitic violence.”

Catholic League president William A. Donohue said today:

The furor over Mel Gibson’s film has now reached a fever pitch. Assemblyman Hikind’s response is an example of how reaction to "The Passion" has spilled into hysteria.

Assemblyman Hikind has alleged that the movie implicates all Jews in the crucifixion, a common misconception of those who haven’t seen the movie. In fact, absolutely nothing in the film is inconsistent with Nostra Aetate, which repudiated the idea of collective guilt of the Jewish people for Jesus’ death.

The contention that the film ‘will spur anti-Semitic fervor’ is nonsense. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, after seeing the film, commented, ‘You can quote me — Mel Gibson’s 'The Passion' is not anti-Semitic. I did not see any anti-Semitism in it.’

If the Catholic League for one moment thought this would inspire anti-Semitism, it would condemn the movie. Indeed, just last year, the league joined with Dov Hikind and other Jews in calling for a boycott of New York’s Jewish Museum, which exhibited art that trivialized the Holocaust.

Having seen the movie twice, I agree with the hundreds of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who have now seen ‘The Passion.’ It is near unanimous: this movie will not foment anti-Semitism. Any such blind charges are vacuous.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Mel Gibson Passion


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: dovhikind; fear; jew; liberal; melgibson; passion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: Tooters
http://www.passion-movie.com/english/trailer.html
21 posted on 08/27/2003 3:27:41 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache (Which one will lose? Depends on what I choose or maybe which voice...I ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Where's the ACLU?

They are working to sue Mel for violating the constitutionally implied right not to be offended by anything remotely suggests the possibility that a just God exists.

22 posted on 08/27/2003 3:30:22 PM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
"Therefore why do we have federal judges ruling on laws that don't exist such as the case down in Alabama? Will someone explain that to me, please."

For some time now, laws, morals, and arguably the Constitution itself has been rendered meaningless by court decisions from all levels. Most business, gov't, and educational leaders couldn't care less, so it just goes on and on.

23 posted on 08/27/2003 3:30:52 PM PDT by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: joobers
thank you, idiotic liberals, for all the free publicity for this film. You saved me a bundle.

Sincerely,

Mel Gibson.

24 posted on 08/27/2003 3:32:31 PM PDT by kstewskis ("Aim small, miss small"....Benjamin Martin to Nathan and Samuel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
It is stating ~Service Unavailable~

My server maybe?
25 posted on 08/27/2003 3:32:41 PM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joobers
I see about one movie a year, and I am sure that in 2004 it will be "The Passion." I think some of the opposition stems from people not wanting to see Jesus portrayed in the role of "suffering servant," which might make him a sympathetic figure to some who previously viewed him as a stern judge.
26 posted on 08/27/2003 3:35:05 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joobers
Something is spooking the dems on this movie, must be a real powerful one and it will hurt them.
27 posted on 08/27/2003 3:35:56 PM PDT by gulfcoast6 (SMILE! The elderly would love to see one thrown their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
Just go to www.passion-movie.com and you will see the link in there.
28 posted on 08/27/2003 3:36:09 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache (Which one will lose? Depends on what I choose or maybe which voice...I ignore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
For some time now, laws, morals, and arguably the Constitution itself has been rendered meaningless by court decisions from all levels. Most business, gov't, and educational leaders couldn't care less, so it just goes on and on.

Yes I understand that, my question is, when is someone, and I hate to bring up this vision again, but someone going to stand at the door ala George Wallace, and demand what law they are enforcing. Courts cannot make law. Judges cannot make law. What the hell has been going on. AND, just what the hell is separation of church and state? What does it mean? What LAW is it based upon?

29 posted on 08/27/2003 3:37:28 PM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Where is the ACLU? Why, they are down in Alabama trying to carry a five ton monument out of the court house on their backs.
30 posted on 08/27/2003 3:45:08 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents
There is no separation of church and state law or provision in the Consitution at all. It's based on a twisted way of interpreting something Thomas Jefferson wrote ONCE, and somehow it's made its way to become the law of the land. Our Constitution only states that the Feds cannot establish a religion (the establishment clause)or prevent the free exercise thereof.

Yes, it's time someone stood up in public and demanded the courts answer for their deeds. Surprised a 'George Wallace' scenerio hasn't happened yet.

31 posted on 08/27/2003 3:47:47 PM PDT by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pbear8
"... nor abridging the freedom of speech..."
32 posted on 08/27/2003 3:50:36 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
It is stating ~Service Unavailable~ My server maybe?

The Darwin server on the website probably isn't working. Just right click on the link, select "Save Target As...", and download the video to your computer.
33 posted on 08/27/2003 4:00:11 PM PDT by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: joobers
I can't wait to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion" - (screw you Miramax).

I'll take all my family and friends to see it.

I'll see it at least 5 times.

I'll buy the DVD.

This is an opportunity for all of us who love Jesus (Catholic and Protestant) to demonstrate that no greater story was ever told.

34 posted on 08/27/2003 4:01:00 PM PDT by Rum Tum Tugger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
Our Constitution only states that the Feds cannot establish a religion (the establishment clause)

You know, that is another pet peeve of mine. I don't believe that the amendment meant that the feds could not "establish" a religion. It meant that they could not make a law that prohibibited the establishment of one in the states. You must remember that a number of the colonies had "official" religious establishments at the time. The amendmendment, to me at least, meant that the feds could not do anything to prohibit that. Now, I know, the years have gone by and now we have judicial rulings and all of that, but, but, that is NOT what the founders meant about an "establishment of religion". It is simply not. And that damn letter that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists nonwithwtanding, there is no such thing as a separation of chruch and state in the U.S. Constitution. There just is not. It is an invention. It is a mirage. But it sure has wrecked havoc on the laws of the U.S. or should I say the mindset of the U.S. as there is no law that "establishes" a separation of church and state.

35 posted on 08/27/2003 4:46:53 PM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: joobers
When a politician does a press conference to DEMAND that a company do or not do something, the implication is that they'd better, or he will use the power of his office to make things difficult for them as the opportunity arises
36 posted on 08/27/2003 4:52:38 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === needs a job at the moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I thought they had no backs ;-p
37 posted on 08/27/2003 5:01:12 PM PDT by Abynormal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Abynormal
That's right, only two faces.
39 posted on 08/27/2003 5:38:03 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
What is the theater release date of 'The Passion'?
40 posted on 08/27/2003 5:44:48 PM PDT by Momaw Nadon (The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it's open.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson