Posted on 02/29/2004 7:54:25 AM PST by Brian Mosely
In 18 years as a professional movie critic, I've never gotten the response that I had this week to my one-star review of "The Passion of the Christ."
I knew the reaction would be hostile - movie critics routinely get hate mail, even one time for a review of "Bambi."
But, as they would say in an action movie of the kind Mel Gibson formerly made, this time, it's personal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Well, seriously, one cannot make blanket statements like that, but perhaps some Jews hate Christians. Obviously one Jew hates Christians, Foxman of the ADL. And since he is a Jewish leader, does he represent a wider trend of hatred and prejudice within the Jewish community?
These are questions that have not been asked very much up to now. Jewish leaders like Foxman have been allowed to make outrageous statements without anyone questioning motives, without asking about prejudices of the person making the accusations.
I am glad to see that you are beginning to ask these questions yourself. After all, criticism is not a one-way street.
Liberal Critic: You bigot, bible thumper, homophobe, antisemitic right-wing religious nut! What a joke using dead languages. The "almost pornograohic" viloence. Over the top. Not historically true say many religious experts....
Christian: The left is biased and hates God.
Liberal Critic: Hate speech! Hate speech! Did you hear this backwood, uneducated Christian right zealot's hate speech? I have never heard such bigoted, shocking, despicable language. This fase protrayal film of Jesus is a real danger to all good Americans who believe in religious freedom. Very likely to stir up hatred aginst Jews. Jewish scholars worry, with real concern for their lives and anti-semitism. And this president is trying to put discrimination INTO the constitution with the help of the redneck nascar Bible-beleiveing southerners and religious extremists. Separation of church and state - it's in the constitution! He is stupid. He is hated around the world. Tear down those war memorial crosses! Put Muslim education into the schools before thousands of American muslims are attacked. There have been shocking civil rights abuses against muslims.We must march in Washington... at the door of this President who does not represent ALL the people. The selected president who was put into office by his Supreme Court lackeys... including a black Uncle Tom who disenfranchised 1000s of African Americans from voting - every vote must count and a woman's right to choose be upheld. We have been Bush-whacked by this embarrassment of a President who is the most divisive person EVER to hold this office! An AWOL drunk who many charge may have used drugs as well. Got into college through daddy's coat-tails and was passed through. America is being taken over by the American Taliban, the religious right, who own this president and threaten ALL our freedoms in this great country. We must stop the hate speech of the right including Rush Limbaugh and talk radio! There is a chill wind blowing from the right and a fariness doctrine should be...
Of course, you understand that if this was Kill Bill, Face Off, Pulp Fiction, Natural Born Killers, Temptation of Christ... that this review would read:
pushing the envelope, thought provoking, challenig the norm, quirky, passionte realism, futhering the dialogue of human experience...blah blaah barf
First, it's not a "reasonable essay" but a stilted hit piece couched in lies and hatred. You can't see that, therefore there is no reason to discuss that aspect of this controversy with you. It's obvious, yet you ignore it. I won't convince you otherwise and I won't listen to your arguments based on your statement above. Your bald statement, with absolutely no justification or rationale provided, makes it plain that you don't want a debate, you simply want to accuse others and pat yourself on the back for being the "good guy." Thanks but no thanks.
I will therefore limit myself to your "whining" question.
She absolutely has the right to spill her hate speech drivel and even the right to get paid for it if someone is stupid enough to do so. Likewise her critics have the absolute right to disagree with her and point out how dishonest she is being. Her posing becomes whining when she pours out hate filled filth and then complains when anyone dares to challenge her on it.
A critic can't complain about criticism. They can argue against it, but they can't complain that it's unfair when their own arguments are answered in kind. A hater can't try to twist confrontation of their hate filled words into hate speech.
This is liberal attack politics 101, straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (Hillary's play book). Accuse your enemies of doing what you already have done. Any answer to your crimes is immediately labeled as that crime. Look at what the dims are trying to do with the gay marriage debate. Look at Kerry's attacks on Bush... any of them! Mr. Gibson's hate spewing "critics" are accusing him, and all Christians, of hate crimes for daring to put forward as truth the central belief of their faith.
"How dare they! Saying Jesus was the Messiah, showing how He suffered and died (while ministering to His own community, the Jews, no less) to pay for our sins, rose from the dead as proof of His identity and therefore fulfilled the Prophets is automatically antisemitic hate speech. Silence them!" Yah. That's a good review of a movie. No reasonable person could possibly challenge that without being a Nazi.
Many Jews have to see Christianity as "hate speech" because it inherently tells them that they have denied and betrayed God for 2000 years. If they don't feel that way, if they accept as "OK" the central Christian story, then they're guilty, not of deicide (the "blood liable" they accuse Mel Gibson of committing, the central argument of this "review" accusing him of antisemitism) but of hypocrisy and denying their own faith when their prophecies were fulfilled. Pagans hated Jews because they said that there were no other gods but God. Christians can't accept Mohamed for similar reasons (though obviously I agree with this position), but interestingly condemn ourselves for that very human reaction as being "intolerant." I wonder if that has anything to do with God's message of forgiveness that Jesus brought us? Muslims openly hate and call for the death of all non-Muslims because they can't tolerate any other possibilities. That doesn't make those that disagree with them wrong or evil, simply for disagreeing.
Just my two cents. The review is certainly not whining. I'll tke the critic at her word, that she has recahed her conclusions with thoughtful deliberation, and has accurately presented her opinion.
But using the same forum to present the fact that many people were put off by her review? That is whining. Maybe even vindictive, you know, tit-for-tat?
An obvious typo. What a pretentious l ass
As well as blind.
Yes, Rabbi Lapin does get it. He has done much to continue the good relationships that the vast majority of Jews and Christians have with each other. But it is very troubling when people like Foxman try to poison the atmospere with outrageous and irresponsible statements.
And rather that just let people like Foxman make hateful statements without any criticism, it is time to examine and expose such statement for the prejudice on which they are based.
This is the first time I've ever responded to God here at FR so I'm quite honored.
Well, I don't consider FReepers a PC audience. But if they don't argue against what she said and instead choose to trash her looks, then they lose by default!
"How about a debate with a slob in a business meeting, or a police station, or a political meeting, or in the military? The slob loses every time because of their lack of reverence for their peers and superiors."
That may or may not be true "every time." A couple of things here though. First, this debate is not in one of the above scenarios/locations, and if the author didn't post her picture, someone responding would have to argue the content of the article, and not the looks of the author. Thus, having seen the picture of the author, the people responding to the article should concentrate on the words, not the looks. Second, the picture is not of a slob, it is just of a woman who is not attractive.
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.