Posted on 12/21/2004 3:18:18 PM PST by swilhelm73
An honored friend, charging that there has been anti-Semitism on the air, sends along the offending transcript, and I read through MSNBC's Scarborough Country (for Dec. 8) and found some noisy people discussing Hollywood. The question before the house: Will The Passion of the Christ win the relevant Oscar, or will it be Fahrenheit 9/11? The seven guests of Pat Buchanan, who was the mc that evening, included a rabbi (Shmuley Boteach) and the president of the Catholic League (Bill Donohue).
The Catholic League ("The Nation's Largest Catholic Civil Rights Organization") fashions itself after the Anti-Defamation League of the Jewish establishment, and although tiny by comparison with the ADL, engages in some of the same excesses. The ADL will find you a hidden anti-Semitic motive in a public recitation of “God Bless America,” and the Catholic League (what it is, essentially, is one man, its president William Donohue) will find anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianity in every third movie produced in Hollywood.
On the MSNBC show, the charge was immediately lodged that a failure by Hollywood to vote Passion ahead of Fahrenheit would constitute, pure and simple, an anti-Christian body blow. I detach from the quarrel to say that I agree that preeminence could not be given to Fahrenheit because it is a superior dramatic production — it could only mean antagonism to Passion. But to vote for a third contestant would be explainable in non-discriminatory language. Many share the opinion that Passion was unnecessarily, and inartistically, bloody.
But to return to the language of the exchange on the television program. Rabbi Boteach led off provocatively: "I hope that Michael Moore actually wins so we can finally confirm what Hollywood is. Hollywood has become an America-hating bastion that always portrays people in uniform in some sinister role."
But for Donohue, charging Hollywood with being anti-American was by no means specific enough: "Who really cares what Hollywood thinks?" The answer to that question is, roughly — everybody. It is because people care that this question was being raised on TV. “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it. [Donohue is not afraid to say anything.] That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth." What Hollywood likes is "anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions."
Donohue's swings were so wide, inevitably he touched on genuine points of controversy, the current one of which focuses on the Christianization of Christmas.
Donohue speaks of things which are "not a secret." And here is a flash point. The opposition to nativity scenes at Christmastime, or to the singing of songs that focus on the manger and the stilled star that hung over it, embraces a wide group of people. Among them are secularists who have drunk deep of ACLU doctrines over the years and have convinced themselves that any theological exercise in public circumstances is both a deprivation of their rights to seamless agnosticism, and a personal affront to believers in competing doctrines. In such language you can't say a Christian prayer without offending the Jew or the Muslim.
Those can be thought of as bureaucrats of Weights and Measures. But in this band are also genuine anti-Christians. People who wince when Christianity is deferred to, people who hate Catholicism as the axis of Christianity and who will seek any opportunity to hinder or belittle it, whether it is removing common prayer from the schools or the invocation of Christ during a Christmas — holiday (not holy day).
It is imprudent and historically ignorant for these to seek to hinder the community that wishes to express sentiments, at Christmastime, that relate to the establishment of the day.
But to suggest that Hollywood is the incubator of the anti-Christian, secularist movement is ignorant and provocative. Rabbi Boteach neatly undercut Donohue by saying simply, "I'm amazed that we've made this a discussion about secular Jews. I have got to tell you that Bill Donohue, who I otherwise love and so respect, ought to be ashamed of himself, the way he's spoken about secular Jews hating Christians. This is a bunch of crap, okay? . . . Hollywood has become a cesspit because it's secular, period." The rabbi is saying it hurts the Jewish faith equally to fight the secularist fight. And that is how to find the right perspectives in the current quarrel.
Methinks Mr. Donahue has the old blue collar Irish parochial attitude toward the chosen people. Does he really think that the gentiles who work in Hollywood (and there are many, btw) are any better on the issue than their secular Jewish colleagues? Is he aware that the major studios are PUBLIC COMPANIES and can thus be "controlled" by anyone with the resources to buy shares?
And I think that's a good thing.
No argument here.
FMCDH(BITS)
The only criticism you can make of it is that maybe Donohue shouldn't have concentrated only on secular Jews. As Buckley says, there are other secularists as well who regularly attack Catholicism and Christianity generally.
But when it came to attacking the passion, there's no question that the ADL and secular Jews were in the forefront, and that influential secular Jews in Hollywood chipped in. Donohue was accurate.
After all, the particular crime they charged Mel Gibson with was antisemitism. They even made a point of going after his aged father for questioning the Holocaust. I would guess that Mel's father is probably senile, and in any case is entitled to his private opinions which never would have been made public if not for the treachery of the interviwer, and which have zero, zip, nada to do with "The Passion."
Since you bring him up, he is at best a Holocaust Revisionist. He may be tending toward senility now but was not when he was in his prime articulating his evil viewpoints. His opinions were not private. He published them.
Great comment...the truth hurts...even criticism about one's personal truth is painful (whether such faith is Christian or Jewish).
Mel's Passion hit a nerve for Christians too. Buckets of tear have been shed by believers who found they were not as faithful as they now find they could have been.
And regarding Mel's father...we all have 'em...they seldom behave the way we want...we love them...but struggle with what they might say...
Pivot point of the entire essay. What surprises me is Mr. Buckley seems to discount the importance of cutting the intellectual legs out from under these "useful idiots," for surely they are the mass that gives the anti-christians their frightful impact.
Of course one could point out that Al Gore's father was a racist and Ted Kennedy's father approved of Hitler. I don't see the press making such a connection in these cases...
As usual, powerful thinking and powerful writing on your part.
I have been thinking much about this kind of stuff lately...but, at least so far, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is so infinitely greater than me that my tiny worries are irrelevant.
He is the spiritual Tsunami.
I say this to me (and to you if it is not offensive)...do not worry my FRiend
But when it came to attacking the passion, there's no question that the ADL and secular Jews were in the forefront, and that influential secular Jews in Hollywood chipped in. Donohue was accurate.
Good eye. Their offensive game may have been secular, but their defense was definitely Jewish, and I'm saying that as an unabashed zionist.
I think both those examples are very legitimate and pertinent.
No
If he were accurate he would simply have attacked secularism. He has another lust.
No worries FRiend! The winner has already been determined. Now the relevant question (that should give pause and trembling) is "by how much?".
Yup...and Merry Christmas!
There is no other lust...I suggest he is just an old-fashion Catholic...
Pull the hate out of this thing...Jesus is a Jew (He was never a Catholic or a Baptist or a Methodist...etc.)
I'm trying, but then you have William Donohue practicing hate for a living.
I have always been a strong supporter of Israel. It saddens me that certain fringe groups among the Jews have tried to whip up hatred for Catholics, because the two should be natural allies.
When I teach Genesis and Exodus I have always put primary emphasis on the Jewish meaning of the texts, and in particular on the meaning of God's Covenant with Israel. I explain that certain passages have taken on further meaning for Christians, but I think it's important to emphasize the original meaning first before considering matters of typology. There would be no Christianity if not for Judaism.
Ping of Christmas
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.