Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[GraniteStateConservative]

This movie will not minister to the Jews or any nonchristian

That's hardly Gibson's problem. It belongs to the Jews or any nonchristian. If they don't believe that Jesus was who he is forevermore, then they won't ever be ministered to. That's the cover charge, the price of admission. This is a praise movie.

[veronica]

I think you are judging Krauthamer too harshly. Most of his comments, if not all of them are accurate. He;s not Christian, he's Jewsih and those are his observations. They seem to be valid ones to me. And I doubt if any one out there can seriously refute them.

The release of this movie, unfortunately, has given cover to some anti-semites, who apparently have had smoldering animus toward Jews lurking on, or just below, the surface. Now they have an opportunity to let it rip, and let it rip they are.

They certainly validate Foxman's concerns.

[sinkspur]

Frum and Krauthammer. Who else (next)? They sure have a weird way of showing their gratitude.

What exactly are they to be grateful for?

[veronica]

These neocon Jews are all warhawks--and I'll bet few to none of these urbanites actually know soldiers.

I assume you'll be voting for Kerry.

After all, while President Bush was in Texas, AWOL from the National Guard, John Kerry was in 'Nam, serving his country as a soldier, dodging real bullets and all.

;)

[sinkspur]

Are you suggesting that Mona Charen, William Safire, and Charles Krauthammer are not scholarly enough to learn about the subject they write about? That's pretty irresponsible and unlike them. I think Occam's Razor would suggest that they know plenty and they just have an agenda like idiots like Paul Krugman.

Your own statement is idiotic.

To question Krauthammer's and Charen's bona fides just because they disagree with you about a movie is pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Mel Gibson had the thief say, "He prays for you," to Caiaphas. He didn't have him say, "He prays for you, Caiaphas." That was the thief speaking to all of us. We are the you.

[sinkspur]

I cannot avoid the conclusion that the likes of Charen, Kraut--and Foxman and Heir (Weisenthal) are arrogant--they are assuming an authority here to tell people how they can worship in public in America. This is truly breathtaking.

Well, you should avoid it, because nobody's telling you how to worship.

They just disagree with you about a movie, and you take it personally.

I don't get it.

[GraniteStateConservative]

excruciating: from Latin excruciare to torture, from cruciare, cruciatum to crucify.

[Mamzelle]

I could turn your claim on its head--that this movie has provided quite the pulpit for Jews to express an acute distaste for the conservative Christian's worship...from liberals like Foxman to conservatives like Charen>--an elitism under the cover of some perceived, hyped-up threat of antisemitism.

And, in the east, some Mullah issues a fatwah, the Fatah commits a new atrocity, and we don't hear a word from the Gibson Hysterics in Hollywood.

And evangelicals will still continue to work to try to keep Israel alive. (Just saw a recent effort by some really way-out evangelicals raising money to get Jews from Ethiopia and Russia to Israel.)

But they're not stupid. They know the score--can't put it back in the box now.

[sinkspur]

This is a praise movie.

It's a money movie. And lots of it.

[GraniteStateConservative]

For supporting the interests of nations that aren't always the same as our nation's.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I'm saying they are abandoning truth and logic in favor of personal belief. What's your reason for their actions?

[sinkspur]

For supporting the interests of nations that aren't always the same as our nation's.

Oh, you mean Israel.

America supports Israel, and Israel's goals, and has for over 50 years. And, we always will, paleo-cons notwithstanding.

[Taliesan]

In this movie the only good Jews are Christians already.

This one comment demonstrates beyond a doubt your prejudice has prevented you from seeing the movie -- the one on the screen, not the one in your head.

In the movie,the only character to be called "Jew" as an insult is Simon of Cyrene. Simon clearly has no idea who Jesus is before he is conscripted; he is NOT a "christian already".

His reluctance turns to sympathy for Jesus' suffering on a purely personal level, and the moment between them where Simon whispers to Jesus "It's almost over" as they both struggle with the weight of the timbers -- this is one of the most moving scenes in he movie.

Simon is one of the heroes of the movie, perhaps the best. There is no indication in the film he was a "christian" before or AFTER his encounter. And he is the only character in the film to receive the insult "Jew".

You have not seen the movie.

[ilgipper]

If Jews are out raged, it is either because they are not paying attention, or those individual are ignorant. Kraut is way, way, way off on this one. He may or may not be a 'genious' as some say here, but he is typically logical and clear thinking. Here he is not. Just because I typically enjoy him and his writing/appearances, that does not mean he is always right.

[Taliesan]

Gibson said many times, before he even had a distributor, that he made the movie to express his vision of the gospel.

You can't seriously argue that Mel Gibson made this movie to make money. Andy.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Well I like the movie. It reminds me of what Christ did for me. But I must say that Mel Gibson relied on two things the Bible "for the words spoken by Christ". And for the Details of the scourging, he relied solely on the writings of Ann Catherine Emmerich a know Mystic and Stigmatist.

Here is a website.

http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm

Her take on the passion of Christ is very Catholic and so is the movie. With Peter basically apologizing to mary for denying Jesus among other things.

Here is a website with some details.

http://www.av1611.org/Passion/passion.html

I found it interesting because I had not realized that Mel Gibson's movied relied so heavily on this womans visions.

[Mamzelle]

The nature of the outcry is that Gibson cannot use Jewish characters from the Gospel without some sort of expressed permission--and the Hollywood types have gone after Gibson's father, a very old fellow who has said some stupid things. Do any of us have old parents who can be counted on to say something awful?

And should we be require to DENOUNCE them in public, a la a loyalty oath? That's what was asked of Gibson. He handled it well--I'd have used a very different tone to someone harassing my old man.

What really poleaxed me was when Jackie Mason started raving about how irresponsible Gibson was to use "Crucify Him" and the Sanhedrin in the movie. Like the story can be told without it? Who does Mason think he is?

When the smoke clears, and Charen, Kraut and Kristol go back to beating the wardrums...well, I suppose we all will still be working for Israel.

But we won't take the elites so seriously--and I'd like to see some new and different pundits now that I know how the present ones really feel about the likes of me.

[xsmommy]

You are not seriously asserting that Mel Gibson made this movie to make money, are you?

[ultima ratio]

Okay, I got it wrong, you're not Jewish. But the advice still holds--make your own movie. This one is Gibson's and he had every right to make it.