Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The big five losers from 'The Passion'
Jerusalem Post ^ | 3.10.04

Posted on 03/10/2004 2:42:00 PM PST by ambrose

The big five losers from 'The Passion'

SHMULEY BOTEACH Mar. 10, 2004

Rather than being a wild triumph for Christianity, The Passion of the Christ has created a long list of losers. Here are the top five:

1. Christian conservatives whose ability to protest violence in Hollywood films has now been severely compromised.

The Christian community in the US earned my abiding respect for serving as the foremost guardians of the morality of the American nation. There are literally hundreds of Christian organizations in the US devoted to enforcing standards of decency in Hollywood, strengthening marriage, and teaching young teens to abstain from sex rather than use a condom.

But the Christian community's enthusiasm for The Passion has dealt a catastrophic blow to its credibility in condemning violence in films and squalid video games such as Grand Theft Auto. Gibson's movie is one of the most brutal and bloody in the history of film and rivals The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for sheer gore.

No doubt my Christian brethren would argue that the violence in The Passion is warranted, given the fact that the subject matter is religiously inspiring. But I predict that Hollywood directors famous for gratuitous violence, such as Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone, will now find convincing arguments that violence in their films also serves an important social purpose.

2. Mel Gibson, who emerges as a talented fanatic at best and a full-blown loon at worst.

Yes, I know, every commentator has painted Mel as the big winner in this brouhaha since his Aramaic movie defied all expectations and so far earned him a cool $200 million. But money is not everything, and Mel must now contend with his new reputation as a violence-obsessed religious fanatic who said that all Protestants, including his own wife, are destined for hell, who claimed that the Holy Ghost helped him direct his film, and who has a Holocaust-denying anti-Semitic dad to boot.

Mel's violent streak has also been much in evidence. As New York Times columnist Frank Rich writes, "If he says that he wants you killed, he wants your intestines 'on a stick' and he wants to kill your dog - such was his fatwa against me in September - not only is there nothing personal about it but it's an act of love."

When the hoopla is over and Mel is searching for a new project, he'll be hard-pressed to find another controversial biblical story that guarantees controversy and profit. After all, you really can't much improve on the charge that the Jews killed God.

3. Jewish conservatives, many of whom now feel alienated from their Christian colleagues and are wondering who are their authentic allies. The Passion has forced upon politically conservative Jews like myself a horrible choice: either betray Jewish interests by pretending that a movie making the charge of deicide is no big deal and playing sycophant to the much larger Christian market by praising the film - a choice all too many high-profile Jewish conservatives have made; or be told that you are endangering Israel by undermining Christian support for the Jewish state.

But I reject the choice between the interests of the Jewish people versus the interests of the Jewish state. Any Christian friend whose support can so quickly evaporate when we object to being falsely portrayed as god-killers in a movie is hardly an ally.

PASSIONATE ADMIRERS of the Christian community, like myself, now feel distant from and disillusioned by our Christian counterparts. Where is Christian sensitivity to an allegation that has led to the death of millions of Jews throughout the ages?

I have been attacked by Franklin Graham on US television for opposing this film. His father Billy, one of America's finest sons and its foremost evangelist, has - for all his greatness - labeled Jews "devilish" in a secretly taped conversation with Richard Nixon.

If such an educated man can develop a negative view of Jews based on the gospel's depiction of Jewish culpability for the death of Christ, what conclusions will the less educated draw as they are shocked by the bloody images of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus? 4. Jews for Jesus.

I have thrice debated leading Jewish-Christian missionary Dr. Michael Brown on the messiahship and death of Jesus. People like my friend Mike must now defend a deeply anti-Semitic film that portrays his own people as devilish murderers who crucified the Creator, thus giving the lie to Jewish-Christian's central argument that believing in Jesus is not a betrayal of the Jewish people. 5. The Christian faith.

The biggest loser of all, tragically, is the Christian religion, which is now portrayed as a religion of blood, gore, and death rather than of blessing, love, and life.

Judaism and its daughter religion, Christianity, were a radical departure from the pagan world's earlier cults of death. Both emphasized the idea of righteous action on this earth and both were based on the Hebrew scriptures' demand for moral excellence and the need to perfect the world in God's name. Even in the New Testament, the passion of Christ occupies at most a chapter or two in each of the gospels, while the life of Jesus is spelled out more than 10 times that number.

But Mel Gibson, in his wearisome, monotonous, and numbing depiction of endless blood and gore, utterly ignores things like Jesus's beautiful ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, focusing entirely on the horrors of the crucifixion.

Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily. Mel Gibson - who told interviewers that he contemplated suicide before making this film - is clearly obsessed with violence and death.

The Passion is an evangelical tool. Is that really Christianity's central message - not that Jesus lived an inspirational life by which the faithful should be roused but that he died a horrible death for which the sinners should feel responsible? Indeed, the only winners emerging from The Passion are Islamic extremists who will no doubt take pleasure in seeing Jews and Christians squabbling at a time of considerable danger to both Israel and the United States.

But rather than blame the Jews for simply defending themselves against Mel Gibson's attack, let's place the blame squarely where it belongs - on Mel Gibson, who could easily have made an inspirational movie about the life and death of Christ without blaming the Jews for Jesus's death and without mixing in enough blood to fill the Jordan River. Instead, he decided to protect his investment by courting controversy and has made hundreds of millions of dollars.

Will he put some of that money toward educating Jews and Christians about their common heritage and kinship? Only time will tell. And in that telling, we will better be able to gauge Mel's motives and sincerity.

The writer is a nationally syndicated talk radio host in the US and author of 14 books.


TOPICS: Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-188 next last
To: ambrose
As Jesus said....

Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

61 posted on 03/10/2004 3:09:51 PM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Argument #1 is absurd because the author does not consider whose point of view we are seeing the violence from or the framework it is presented within. Some violence in films requires that you feel nothing for the injured person and is dehumanizing (an I - It relationship, to borrow from Martin Buber - the victim is something gross to laugh at as it goes splat).

Violence that creates sympathy with the target but then still injures that character is likewise a waste if its only purpose is to generate some catharsis (again, I - It, with the "thrill" finally taking precedence over the relationship). That is hardly the case with this film. It presents the violence in the framework of an I - Thou relationship - we sympathize with/for Christ and in that sympathy feel some hint of the sympathy He must have felt for us, all sinners trapped in a world of violence devoid of meaning until His sacrifice.
62 posted on 03/10/2004 3:10:30 PM PST by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
"SHMULEY BOTEACH"

Is that the lab name for some nasty STD that Clinton has?

Pronounced: "schmu-LAY BO-tee-ACK"
63 posted on 03/10/2004 3:11:55 PM PST by HighWheeler (RATS hero is an impeached, dis-barred, lying, perjuring, cheating, lazy, cowardly sexual predator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Schmuley has been one of Michael Jackson's biggest supporters.

Link? Source?

You have GOT to be kidding me ambrose, you post one of the shrillest voices crusading against this movie, who earlier called for a boycott of the movie in a rant published before the opening....and don't know this wierdo's past?

Happy birthday little boys, I guess Jackon's use of "Jesus juice" is far less intolerable than this Evil film.

64 posted on 03/10/2004 3:13:37 PM PST by PeoplesRep_of_LA (Treason doth never prosper, for if it does, none dare call it treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
But can I ask Freepers what they think of the first point of this article -- about the breakdown of previous prohibitions on movie violence?

Actually I thought Mr. Boteach's first point was astute. I do think the existence of The Passion.. will (rightly or wrongly) lessen the ability of "Christian conservative" types to complain about movie violence.

I've never been all that bothered by movie violence per se, so I don't really have a dog in that hunt, but I think it's a fair point, which is why I really had nothing to add to it...

65 posted on 03/10/2004 3:14:33 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Utterly obsurd!!
66 posted on 03/10/2004 3:15:06 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I think I catch your point. But maybe my question wasn't clear. What if some other movie maker wants to depict some other historical figure, male or female, being tortured to death? Seems to me that a movie studio might think about financing such a film. Call me crazy, but I bet a few movie makers will try it. And it seems to me Christians will have a hard time complaining.
67 posted on 03/10/2004 3:16:16 PM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
the Jews felt that, in Christianity, their core teachings had been perverted and abused. They read some of the New Testament's insidious attacks against them and wondered how a book claiming divine authorship can be so blatantly anti-Semitic. Although Christianity stemmed from Jewish origin, it took the concept of the Jewish God and associated it with a man; took the concept of sacrifice and associated it with a human sacrifice. Christianity took their cherished Torah and said that it had been superseded by a new testament. And finally, it took the concept of the chosen nation itself, claimed that the Jews had been abandoned by God, and called themselves the new Israel. Jews reacted in outrage. The Jews withdrew from mainstream Christian society. Christians' burning Jews at the stake, as heretics would do little to make them draw closer. - Rabbi Boteach

Rabbi Boteach, like many other Jews simply hates Christianity.

68 posted on 03/10/2004 3:16:25 PM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawgreg
Hold on freepers.......is this the same person who was a buddy of Whacko Jacko and said he would trust him with his kids?

Yep. He was originally a rabbi of the ultra-orthodox (but in a moderate way) Chabad grouping, and was more or less thrown out. (More or less because Chabad doesn't go in for defrocking.) I was wondering what a real Chabad rabbi would say about the movie. Not much, since they don't go to movies! I did find one article. This doesn't reach any real conclusions, but I thought was within yelling distance of being nice enough, when you take into account that the author comes from a tradition which regards walking into a church as forbidden:

Thank You Mel Gibson

I hope no Christians look at the above link the wrong way because the rabbi is really just talking to Jews -- as Mel Gibson is, I presume, primarily addressing Christians. As a Jew I really could not see myself seeing this film, but if it strengthens the faith of Christians I am all for it.

69 posted on 03/10/2004 3:17:14 PM PST by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
The writer is an ignorant idiot.
70 posted on 03/10/2004 3:18:05 PM PST by gedeon3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
1. Christian conservatives whose ability to protest violence in Hollywood films has now been severely compromised.

Idiots.

Conservatives of all stripes (not just Christians) have been protesting GRATUITOUS violence in Hollywood films for ages.

Hard to equate what was done to Jesus with a pimp poppin' a cap in some crack ho's head for holdin' out on him.

Nice try but no cigar on this point. Gad I hate it when people are intentionally disingenuous or worse, obtuse, to make a point.

71 posted on 03/10/2004 3:18:24 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (If you can read this...you're too close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Priceless!!
72 posted on 03/10/2004 3:18:34 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan
"The Passion has forced upon politically conservative Jews like myself..."

Have you noticed lately the habit of Libs to cloak themselves as Republicans or conservatives before they spew some liberal bogus charge or other stupid remark?

They have to do that, it's the only way to seem like they are resonable, level headed, intelligent, respectable, thoughful people. Their next line, however, always shows they are knuckleheads.
73 posted on 03/10/2004 3:18:37 PM PST by HighWheeler (RATS hero is an impeached, dis-barred, lying, perjuring, cheating, lazy, cowardly sexual predator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
As New York Times columnist Frank Rich writes...

Anyone quoting Frank Rich approvingly sacrifices any shred of credibility he may have yet remaining.

74 posted on 03/10/2004 3:19:57 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HaloStatue
1. Wrong, and I can prove it.
2. Wrong, and I can prove it.
3. Wrong, and I can prove it.

Did I miss 4 & 5? They were wrong too, though

At first I missed 4 and 5 as well. They were well camoflauged by poor formatting.

The author's Top 5 list:
1. Christian conservatives
2. Mel Gibson,
3. Jewish conservatives
4. Jews for Jesus
5. The Christian faith.

I also happen to think the author is WRONG on all five counts, but if he saw the movie he obviously saw it from such a different perspective than I that his perception of winners and losers would be understandably distorted.

75 posted on 03/10/2004 3:21:11 PM PST by VRWCmember (Dick Gephardt is a <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure </a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
What if some other movie maker wants to depict some other historical figure, male or female, being tortured to death?

No person has ever suffered the torture of Jesus.

I understand your concern also, but I say, 'let them make their disgusting movies --- we'll voice our objection with our boycotts.'

I'm sure Hollywood has made some truly violent and disgusting films, but I can't name them, because I don't watch them.

If Hollywood depended on me and folks like me, it would be a ghost town.

76 posted on 03/10/2004 3:22:03 PM PST by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
"I hope those who have seen The Passion and value it will not allow him to bait you to anger with his caustic rhetoric in this article."

Thanks for your voice of reason, af_vet.


77 posted on 03/10/2004 3:22:15 PM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #78 Removed by Moderator

To: kevkrom
A much more insightful top 5 list. You are most likely a genius.
79 posted on 03/10/2004 3:23:04 PM PST by VRWCmember (Dick Gephardt is a <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure </a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
Have you noticed lately the habit of Libs to cloak themselves as Republicans or conservatives before they spew some liberal bogus charge or other stupid remark?

Yes, but not really in this case. I took, and still take, Rabbi Boteach at his word that he is politically conservative. My disagreement with him is limited to this one issue; I see no reason to draw partisan politics into it.

80 posted on 03/10/2004 3:23:20 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-188 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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