Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

You as a non Jew have no clue and never will.

Let's try a hypothetical. Remove one word from your sentence:
"You as a ~~non~~ Jew have no clue and never will."
How does that sound?
To me it sounds pretty ugly.

Take your insulting rhetoric and stuff it. You are, and will continue to remain completely without any understanding what so ever.

Say goodbye you ignorant fool.

And you say my rhetoric is insulting?
Here's one clue I do have:

Gen 12:1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram,
Get thee out of thy country,
and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house,
unto a land that I will shew thee:

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation,
and I will bless thee,
and make thy name great;
and thou shalt be a blessing:

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee,
and curse him that curseth thee:
and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV)
Blue Letter Bible

Every day of my life the knowledge of the existence of the Jews, of Israel, and of their History is evidence to me of my Christian faith. The first three verses of Genesis 12 are among the most important words ever written, and I do not take them lightly.
Here is an ineffable truth:
The closer a Christian is to Christ, the farther he is from anti-Semitism.
I have been and will remain a friend to the Jews.
My God is the King of the Jews.
If you have difficulty with that, that is your cross to bear.

BTTT

I took nothing personal from what the poster said.

I questioned his logic and his idea that Gibson's motives for making the film were different from what he stated.

I questioned his determined assault on a film he has not seen, and I questioned his apparent unexplained fear of Christians. He finds them a threat and finds them irritating? But respects them?.

No person, secure in his beliefs would have these feelings and I only attempted to cause the poster to see this through introspection.

As for me, I am not at all emotionally concerned, only intellectually.

I mentioned the fact that my father was a bigot, only to illustrate that I understand how Gibson sees his father, and why he did not publicly insult him by trashing him.

My father died a bigoted fool. But I never willfully insulted him and was at his bedside when he passed. My duty as eldest son fulfilled.

Very well said.

OOPS! After some looking, I have discovered that the "he" is a "she".

My apologies for not getting that right, but it happens all too often due to a lack of info on the personal page.

I will get this right, sooner or later. Sorry for the mistaken ping, socal.

These neocon Jews are all warhawks--and I'll bet few to none of these urbanites actually know soldiers. Soldiering is something for those icky rural Southern Baptists (who aren't allowed to write for the National Review.) More arrogance. Die for Israel, but don't talk about why Israel is important for Christians. Don't risk offending me, bubulah, but tote that gun.

How dare you smear good people in this manner. Just because they disagree with you.

I think it was quite nicely put. It is getting a little tiresome the incessant bitching by Jews and yelling of "CRUCIFY!...CRUCIFY", at Christians, the lies and distortions and accusations against the only friend modern Jewry has is perplexing at least, frightening at worst.

If you haven't accepted Jesus yet, REPENT from your ways and accept him...You continue rejecting Christ and you risk eternal damnation...We are the chosen people.

He has always been strong on foreign policy...even back in the early 80s at TNR. Guess he just got his neo-nose under the door.

I think Krauthammer's a good guy, with a huge blind spot.
I don't, however, find the "neo" and "neoconservative" appellations helpful here. They're too often bandied about in a way that gives the impression of sinister machinations and suspicions.
"Jewish conservatives" works well enough, though we can debate Krauthammer's gun-control positions on less high-charged threads at another time.
I'm not slamming you personally, but the rhetoric is getting intense. Sometimes necessarily so, but at other times more than is necessary.

"In a thread full of blood libels and religious smears, now including your own, you ought to do better than wade into it as indiscriminately as you did."

I have to disagree with you. My post does not attack any religion, nor was I being indiscriminate at who I was targeting my post to. I was making observations about many of the ugly posts contained within, and which I cleary clarified as "many" in my initial post. In short, the post was *directed* to "all," to discuss the *many* ad-hominem attacks. Its not unlike when the President speaks to the nation (all) to discuss a problem caused by certain legislators (many). When he does this, and is subtly refering to the Ted Kennedys, the Rick Santorums do not mistake this as an attack on them.

However, it was my full intention to call out those who rather than intellectually tear apart Krathammer's theories, opted to invoke crude epithets to tear down Krathammer himself. To me, that kind of behavior should be left to the faithful over at Moveon.com and other leftwing outlets. I would hope the fine people here at Free Republic would be a little more intelligent when analyzing articles we take issue with.

Here is a bit from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"THANK GOD FOR KRAUTHAMMER: Charles Krauthammer has never written a dumb column, to my knowledge. Even on emotional subjects such as civil marriage, he brings to the debate a calm reasoning that wins the respect of his opponents as well as his supporters. And that is also why his searing criticism of Mel Gibson's inflammatory and idiosyncratic version of the Passion is so helpful. I'm tired of people believing that Gibson is representing Catholicism. He isn't. He is a rebel against Catholicism, specifically the reformed, open, repentant Catholicism of the Second Vatican Council. Gibson doesn't recognize the authority of the current Pope; he doesn't recognize the current mass - the central ritual of Catholics across the world. People are mistaken in believing that he merely prefers the Latin mass; he doesn't. He favors the Tridentine mass, a relic. He believes that all non-Catholics are going to hell, another heresy. He is clearly and palpably anti-Semitic. His movie is an act of aggression against Jews, and, as such, is an act of aggression against Catholicism and the current Pope's heroic efforts to confront the shameful history of the Church with regard to the Jewish people. Charles notes how Satan walks and lives and breathes among the Jews in the movie. He doesn't mention that young Jewish children actually turn into demons at one point in the movie, a device that only students of medieval anti-Semitism would notice. In fact, one reason that today's viewers do not notice the hatred of Jews in the movie is because, mercifuly, they are not familiar with the medieval tropes that signal evil and that Gibson trafficks in. Gibson knows. And he knows how his movie will play in those parts of the world where anti-Semitic tropes are still recognized. Notice I am not accusing people of good faith who have found inspiration in the story portraayed in this movie of being anti-Semitic. I'm sure that many if not almost all of that devition is genuine and not motivated by anything but spiritual hope and reflection. But that cannot disguise the malice that lies beneath. And that Gibson would use the message of Christ to advance it is what makes it doubly unforgivable."

FYI

I had not thought of the "neo-nose"=Jewish thing until you brought it up.

I happen to like aquiline noses. Folks think I'm nutty cause I think Sofia Coppola is cute.

I like Chuck's hawkishness but culturally he is out to lunch...just my two cents. He is not as far removed from Marty Peretz as I had hoped.

I find myself a mix of Neo (since that means hawk) and Paleo (since that infers social righty)....

You must admit though that there are a number of Neos who speak well about war but have no clue about the war being waged right here. Some are Jewish some are not.

This whole thing is a bit charged anyhow since media pundits are disproportionately Jewish anyhow....which only has to do with Jews being drawn to that sort of occupation I guess.

I have complained about Chuck's gun stance here for years but nobody except my bang-list compadres seem to listen.

Boy,

You've taken some hits around here.

Geez.

Nice work thought, more lucid than I can muster.

:>)

Dittos on all that!

I find Andrew Sullivan's observations to be of limited utility, especially of late, and especially with regard to hot issues in the culture wars.

Does he provide any evidence of his list of charges against Gibson?

Here's a bit of info on the Tridentine Mass. It's not quite so diabolical as Sullivan would have you believe.

Here's another view of "The Passion of the Christ," with substantial quotes from Rabbi Daniel Lapin in support of the film:

Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Gerald Warner

"ECCE homo." The words of Pontius Pilate - "Behold the man" - with which he exhibited Jesus, scourged and crowned with thorns, to the hostile crowd have inspired many devout works of art down the centuries. Yet only now has the cinema, the popular art form of our time, the challenge of portraying what Christians acknowledge to be the defining moment of human history, with the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ.

Since it is not due for release in this country until March 26, it would not be possible to offer a conventional critique of this production - the actors’ performances, quality of direction, photography and all the other elements by which a film is normally assessed. The need to suspend judgment on such technicalities, however, should not inhibit believers from taking a stand on the issues with which the enemies of the faith are assailing Gibson and - by extension - the entire Christian canon.

The first point of controversy that must be addressed is the distraction - for that is what it is - of the claim that the film is anti-Semitic. There could be no better way of dismissing this canard than by invoking responsible Jewish opinion, as voiced by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of Toward Tradition, an American organisation that exists to build bridges between Jewish and Christian communities. Rabbi Lapin has excoriated the activists persecuting Gibson with a robustness that few Gentiles would have dared to exhibit.

Two weeks ago, Lapin predicted that the film "will become famous as the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made" and that "the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as Passion uplifts and inspires them". Pity no Catholic bishop has gone on record in equally enthusiastic vein. Lapin went on to denounce "Jewish organisations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism". With heroic objectivity, he also condemned the offence given to Christians because "Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian scripture ‘really means’".

The rabbi’s remarks follow upon an even more devastating broadside he delivered five months ago, on the same theme, when he insisted that protests against Gibson’s film "lack moral legitimacy". He cited the exhibition of blasphemous art shown in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum, when Arnold Lehman was director, including a Madonna smeared with elephant dung. He also pointed out, with a directness that no Christian could contemplate, that Martin Scorsese’s blasphemous film The Last Temptation of Christ was distributed by Universal Pictures, run by Lew Wasserman, and posed the question "why Mel Gibson is not entitled to the same artistic freedom we accorded Lew Wasserman?"

Rabbi Lapin’s moral integrity and plain speaking have done more for Christian-Jewish relations than a thousand futile ecumenical symposia and weasel-worded scriptural trade-offs brokered by pressure groups and Vatican appeaseniks. It seems reasonable to hope that he speaks for a majority of his co-religionists, rather than the strident protesters. That said, the most vitriolic enemies of the film and its message are not Jews: they are drawn from the forces of militant secularism and the Fifth Column within the Catholic Church.

For, make no mistake, this is an intensely Catholic film. Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who rejects the humbug and chaos of the Second Vatican Catastrophe - as do an increasing number of the disillusioned survivors stumbling around in the ruins of the once-mighty Roman Catholic Church. The faithful translation on to film of the scriptural narrative of Christ’s passion and resurrection would, 50 years ago, have presented Catholics with an image that was totally familiar. Bishop Joseph Devine, bishop of Motherwell, is one of the few in Britain to have seen the film and has described it as "stunningly successful... a profoundly religious film."

Yet, today, the Easter People, the dancers in sanctuaries, those who claim They Are Church and all the assorted Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men who have converted Catholicism into a crankfest regard the Passion with as much alienation as any atheist.

Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites.

You will find little dissent from those propositions among the smirking, blue-rinse nuns of the post-Conciliar Church, or their ecumaniac male counterparts. To them, the crack of the centurion’s whip and the thud of the hammer on nails are distant, alien sounds - a disturbing echo of Holy Week long ago, of Gregorian plainsong, of ferias in Seville. In a word - ecumenically unhelpful; best washed away by a few more cups of tea at Scottish Churches House.

The militantly secular world is also keenly alert to the challenge of the Passion. In responding to Gibson’s initiative, no double-standard is too blatant, no inversion of truth too shameless. Critics are queuing up to denounce "pornographic violence" (the now favourite weasel phrase) in the literal portrayal of the crucifixion.

These are the self-same people who acclaimed every sadistic and pornographic obscenity with which Hollywood has poisoned the world over the past three decades, who vigorously denounced "censorship" and promoted the "pushing of boundaries". Now, suddenly, they are alarmed about pornographic violence.

Yet, amid all the sound and fury, the most contemptible phenomenon is the trahison des clercs. The Catholic Church will not embrace this film, despite the Pope’s verdict on it ("It is as it was!"), because it expresses a faith it now finds embarrassing. The Passion was made with as much religious dedication as the crafting of an Orthodox icon. The Tridentine Mass was celebrated on the set every morning and there was at least one conversion to Catholicism during the making of the film. Small wonder that modernist Roman theologians are galled by the fact that Tradition has produced the most triumphant artistic articulation of faith and that evangelical Protestants are flocking to experience it.

The Mass, as the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, was the perfect complement to this artistic tribute to God. At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross. That is the cosmic drama of redemption that is re-enacted on the altar: "Behold the man".
Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary
The Scotsman | February 29th, 2004

That's pretty good from Andrew Sullivan who IIRC was raised Catholic. Sullivan is good when he doesn't talk about "gay issues", such as gay marriage, blech!

Haters are haters..they need no reason.

Post 1055.
"Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary"
Interesting column posted there.

If I were Catholic I would favor the Tridentine Mass. I don't like modernistic gobbledygook in any religion. I think Mel's trying to "convert" y'all over to traditional Catholicism. Mel's PASSION is a vehicle for proselytizing, among other things.

Dennis,Protestants are not so easily led.We are secure in our beliefs.The Gospels,the Bible are the ultimate authorities,not a movie.

I pray the common enemy we Christians and Jews face would bring us together.Christians in other parts of the world are facing death,slavery and repression.Jews certainly can relate to that.
God Bless America...God Bless Israel

Not at all. I just like exposing vicious hypocrites. Whited sepulchres.