Posted on 02/28/2004 9:09:32 PM PST by Alouette
Jews concerned about Mel Gibson's The Passion face a classic tar-baby situation: The harder they struggle, the worse they make their situation. Though the battle may have helped a few Jewish defense organizations replenish their coffers, its principal achievement to date has been to ensure The Passion one of the largest first-week grosses in Hollywood history, and to allow Gibson to skillfully portray himself as the Defender of the Gospels under siege.
From whom? The Jews.
As Melanie Phillips astutely observes, the more Jews complain about anti-Semitism, the greater the anti-Semitism. Charges of anti-Semitism enrage real anti-Semites, who dismiss such charges as more Jewish whining, and dismay Christians who do not recognize any hatred of Jews in their hearts.
An even more fundamental problem confronts those worried about the effect of The Passion. It is impossible for Jews to criticize Gibson's film without being perceived as attacking the Christian Gospels upon which it is largely based. Given the relative number of Jews and Christians in the world, that is a losing proposition.
That is not to say that Jewish concern is unfounded. Passion plays, even without the mesmerizing effect of the big screen and Technicolor special effects available to Gibson, have a long and ignominious history of inciting pogroms.
As the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby points out, Gibson seems to have no interest in Jesus's life as a Jew, or even in why he would have been of concern to either Roman or Jewish authorities. His almost exclusive focus is on his brutal death at the hands - primarily - of the Jews.
Gibson belongs to a breakaway sect of Catholic "traditionalists" that rejects as illegitimate the reforms of Vatican II, including the absolving of the Jewish people of collective guilt for Jesus's death. Gibson's father, Hutton, dismisses Vatican II as a "conspiracy of Freemasons and Jews." (Last week, Hutton Gibson insisted that the extermination camps were merely work camps.) About his father Mel says: "That man never lied to me in his life."
Faced with the threat posed by Gibson's film, Jews needed a good measure of the brains for which former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad so "praised" us. The tragedy is that American Jewry today lacks a leader of the stature of the late Rabbi Moshe Sherer, long-time head of Agudath Israel, capable of activating an extensive network of Christian allies for common causes.
HAD JEWISH spokesmen been less eager to thrust themselves front and center, plenty of Christian allies could have been found to help blunt the impact of The Passion.
The Catholic Church cannot be terribly enthusiastic about a cinematic presentation of a theology that rejects current papal teaching on the Jews. Indeed, a group of mostly Catholic New Testament scholars, affiliated with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, submitted a study pointing out the departures of Gibson's original script from the Gospels and from papal teaching, as well as the "lurid details" imported from the ecstatic visions of an 18th-century German nun.
Catholic scholars are aware of the numerous contradictions between the four Gospels. They acknowledge that the different human authors wrote in a particular historical context that made it necessary to deliberately downplay the Roman agenda for Jesus's execution. Coming from Catholics, such comments may have some positive impact without any of the inevitable negatives when Shmuley Boteach says the same thing.
While evangelical Protestants will have little truck with such historical analysis of New Testament texts, they tend to overwhelmingly be philo-Semites and, unlike the Catholic Church, continue to view Jews as the Chosen People. With them, the proper approach is that adopted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center: an open appeal to Christians of goodwill to do for Jews what we cannot do for ourselves - i.e., work to ensure that The Passion does not become a vehicle for arousing anti-Semitic furies.
The Wiesenthal Center's "Appeal to People of Faith" expressly eschews any request that Christians renounce or censor their most holy texts. It places the focus on actions, not beliefs. And that is as it should be.
Believing Jews have no interest in dictating others' theology or demanding that they reject their most sacred texts. (One more reason for religious Jews to avoid a frontal confrontation with Mel Gibson.) All religion suffers when any religion is subjected to the strictures of modern-day political correctness. Already on many university campuses, it is a "hate crime," punishable by expulsion, to express the biblical abhorrence of homosexual acts.
Religion is drained of all its power and majesty when its adherents witness its sacred texts and thousands of years of exegesis adjusted in accord with the demands of the local thought police. Recently, I was asked by a BBC moderator of a discussion of the Women of the Wall: "But don't you think that a religion must update in accord with the times?"
"Not unless it wishes to be as irrelevant to the lives of believers as the modern Church of England," I replied.
What?
I grew up in Catholic schools in the 50's and 60's and I never ever heard the Jews blamed for the death of Jesus. My testimony must sound amazing to those who for some reason believe that Catholic schools in the US were foaming with haterd of the Jews, but I never even heard a stray antisemetic remark.
I grew up "around" Catholic schools in the same timeframe, in a lower middle class section of the Bronx. I heard quite a bit more than "a stray" antisemetic remark, and felt them too, generally at the fists and boots of groups of a half dozen or so "good Catholic boys" when they'd get me alone.
Perhaps it is more of a European phenomenom, but for my part, it really struck me as weird when I first heard that anti-Semitism was in part based upon a belief that the Jewish race was responsible for the passion and crucifxion of Jesus.
My attackers were for the most part first generation Americans of Italian extraction. I don't attribute their hatred so much to any particular religious beliefs (although they were clearly expressed at the times of the beatings). I attribute it mostly to a cultural hatred, i.e., stuff they heard at home. I do believe that their churches were aware of these sentiments, but for whatever reasons, did not, or could not change it.
The christian right will now be unbelievably mobilized and energized in this election year
Therein, IMO, lies most of the organized opposition to this film, i.e., it's political rather than religious. This does not however detract from the fact that there are American Jews who have experienced real live antisemetism behavior firsthand.
You and I attended Catholic schools in an era when the anti-Semitism of earlier generations had been largely expunged from Catholic teaching. But, historically, the anti-Semitism was there at the popular level, whether or not it was there at the doctrinal level. I've heard many stories of American Jews from an older generation being taunted by Catholc children as they were growing up.
I don't know how you define "older generation" -- I'm in my mid-50s -- but I certainly experienced what you describe back in that time period.
Most of my friends today happen to be Jewish and they have not had experiences of such anti-semitism which is a substantial problem. I think when you resort to the stories of some school children, that you never know what you are really dealing with. Iam sure that there is antisemitism here and there.
As one of those "some school children", I don't appreciate being reduced to a "story". What I experienced was quite real. Real enough that I still bear physical scars some forty odd years later. "Here and there" in the above framed context sounds perilously close to "neither here nor there".
Unfortunately, my own experience is that it's both "there" and "here", with "there" being defined as some 40 years back, and "here" being defined as our contemporary times. I still run into "casual" antisemetic remarks, things like, "He wanted fifty bucks for it, but I jewed him down to thirty five."
Harmless? Sure, if you're not a Jew. I guess if I was Black, and had someone casually explain to me about some "nigger" stuff, I might feel similarly. The difference of course is that "polite" people would never say that to a Black man's face -- but, the same "polite" people don't know that I'm a Jew simply by looking at me or speaking with me.
I've also had contemporary "Christians" explain to me how the "International Jewish Conspiracy" rules the world, blah blah blah [insert ad nauseum cut+paste jobs from hashed-over "The Protocols" swill]. I've also had contemporary "Christians" explain to me how Jews are not really humans, but are actually the flesh and blood descendants of Satan.
By "contemporary", I mean as recently as this year.
For that reason, I am seriously considering going down to the courthouse and filing a legal change of name to the "Jewish name" I was given at birth.
Is it "cruel" of me to want to "make them uncomfortable"?
Possibly. But no moreso than them not giving a rat's ass about making me uncomfortable, n'est ce pas?
Since when have American Christians --- in more than two hundred years --- rushed out and gone howling through the streets of a 'Jewish quarter' (there aren't any in America) burning and killing?
The question virges on histrionics. Sure, I wasn't killed by teeming mobs, but that doesn't make being beaten to hell by a half dozen punks feel any better, especially when it happened with predictable regularity.
This article is no exception. It contends that unless Mel rejects his father, he's evil.
From what little I can gather about his father, i.e. from snippets of interviews I've seen, and various quotes of his, it seems to me that his father is a bit of a nut case.
However, it's the vilest level of "dirty pool" to try to use a man's father's failings against him, to drive a wedge between them, and to use the anticipated defense of his father as "proof" of his own failings.
My own father was a bit of a nut case in some ways. Yet, I loved him, and would have given my life to protect him, and stood up to anyone who tried to harm him, or defame him.
That's just human nature, and to architect an attack on Mel Gibson using his father as the cutting edge, is beyond despicable.
Why would we want to "blunt" impact of the passion?
Not "blunt" it so much as temper it with the Resurrection, and the point of the death in the first place.
Any "Christians" who attack "the Jews" for the crucifixion are betraying their own putative faith, because without the crucifixion, there is no redemption by the cross, and without redemption by the cross, there is no Christianity, period. To put it another way, those who attack "the Jews" for the crucifixion are attacking the foundations of their own claimed faith, and exhibiting severely irrational thought.
I'll prove it to you. The last attack by the Israeli Airforce in Gaza has been reported over and over. But the murder by Palestinian terrorists of a young Israeli couple never made it in the news. (I only know of it because I surf Israeli web sites.)
By the same token, there was a recent incident where a Jewish family took a wrong turn, and their car ended up in a rather seedy Palestinian neighborhood -- and then came under attack.
What happened next was that several Palestinians rose to their defense, and protected them at risk of their own lives, until the IDF could come and rescue them. If I recall correctly, I read about that story in the Israeli press too, but it didn't get very wide distribution. As far as "mass appeal", it's got something to offend pretty much everyone, so no one would want to run with it. "The press" has an agenda? Tell me it ain't so!
The other morning on Fox News, they had a Priest and a Rabbi talking about the movie. The Rabbi brought up the hooked noses on all the Jews in the film. That complaint must have been on the talking points memo for those who are anti-Mel's film because I've heard it repeated several times. I haven't seen the film yet, but correct me if I'm wrong...weren't most of the extras in the movie Italian?
I'm half Russian, half Hungarian. Probably some Cossack and Gypsy too if you go back far enough. Strange, how Jews from different regions have the same general appearance of the gentiles from those same regions.
I've been mistaken for an Italian, and I've had people think I was a Mexican, based on my physical appearance.
Go figure.
As far back as the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism (1500s) states that Christians are more responsible than Jews for the sufferings of Christ.
When people hate you for being Jewish, it generally doesn't have anything to do with any scholastic research into the roots of their religious beliefs. It's a gutteral, visceral, almost animal hatred. Trust me on that one, I've looked it in the eye often enough to get a pretty good feel for it.
...or whether Jews ever try to blame present-day Christians for the anti-Jewish behavior of Christians in the past.
For some of us, "the past" isn't exactly ancient history.
Well, there's my two cents, take it as you will.
One last thing. As a Jew who's also been a Christian for about 35 years, I've experienced not only anti-Jewish sentiment from those who call themselves Christians, but also anti-Christian sentiment from those who call themselves Jews. There's plenty of blame to throw around, and frankly no one is going to change anyone's mind about anything by arguing with them, "reasoning" with them, or what have you. "Change" is something that an individual will have to choose to do on his own. If someone hates you because of who you are, or what you believe, there is nothing you can do to change that reality. Nothing.
One final note: The real enemy today -- apart from the middle-eastern terror networks -- and perhaps even more insidious -- is the "Christian Identity" bunch, who are trying to recast themselves as "Christians". They infest normal Christian circles, and then begin injecting their venom, enlightening people with their studied wisdom, explaining the satanic roots of modern day Judaism, telling folks how "the Jews" aren't the real "Jews", but are the literal spawn of Satan, with "The Real Jews" being "The Aryan Race", i.e., Germans and English.
Sound familiar to anyone? Well, it's making a comeback. You may even know some of 'em yourself. They start out subtle, to try to gain your confidence, and then gradually try to establish themselves as biblical scholars, and then ever so subtly, they begin injecting their poison.
There are two classes of people who are attacking this movie. One group is the left, who attack it because it appeals to their opposition, i.e., conservatives, largely Christian. The other group are those who have experienced antisemetism firsthand, and are not able to distinguish between different "flavors" of "Christianity". To these people, "Christian" means "those who have harmed me."
It's up to real Christians to ignore the trap set by the first group, and to demonstrate to the second that there are real Christians, and "Christians in Name Only" -- and, the difference between the two.
I saw the Film on Friday, it was magnificent. And yes you're right; as an Italian, all I saw were Italians, and when the credits rolled I found I was right.
Peter looked a lot like Phil Esposito of the big, bad '72 Bruins.
Yes, there were hooked noses, but unfortunately for The Passion's denunciators, they were/are Italian hooked noses. The hooked noses charge has got to be one of the flimsiest, left of the bellcurve assertions of anti-semitism, I ever seen, bordering on derangement.
You're absolutely right. And in fact, in the movie (due to Jesus' reply while questioning him) Pilate asks his wife what is truth? Then goes on to elaborate his truth, which goes something like this: 'you know what my truth is Claudia? My truth is that Caesar has already advised me that the next insurrection that occurs in my territories will end with my blood being spilled once and for all. What do I do about that truth, Claudia?'
He is portrayed as he is portrayed in the New Testament: strictly a political creature who isn't able to find the fault with Jesus that Caiaphas wants him to.
The ADL is Communist-front organization, nothing more. Abe Foxman is no more Jewish than Mel Gibson. His religion is Secular Humanism. He is mortal danger to Jews and exploits his own JINO status to try and become the Jewish Jesse Jackson. You can see his ties to the International Left when he continually refuses to denounce Muslims in the U.S., only "skinheads" and other whites who havent so much as looked cross-eyed at a Jew is 30 years. All Jews should denounce this fat pig. What he has done over the Passion was disgusting and indeed has contributed to an increased hostility to Jews in general.
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.