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.
It also may go some way towards explaining Mr Donohue’s anger and hostility at what he perceives are Jewish lapses, that they did not support his protests of assaults on Catholic/Christian beliefs and symbols. The problem, which the Lapin article demonstrates (and which I believe was in part Boteach’s point) is that the “Jews” are not monolithic nor is Hollywood.
Further one problem with Lapin’s point about Jewish artists and lack of Jewish protest of anti-Christian acts is that he identifies individuals not organizations representing an official or systemic approach. Or in the case of an organization like the ACLU it is not a Jewish organization representing any Jewish point of view though some of its members are Jewish. The ACLU point is similar to Donohue calling Hollywood Jewish. A fairer question would be - did the Jewish Anti Defamation League, a specifically Jewish organization, protest?
Rabbi Lapin points out:
Where was the Jewish expression of solidarity against such ugliness? Only a small group of Orthodox Jews joined their fellow Americans in protest at this literal defilement of Christianity with elephant feces.
This supports my sense that the religious are connected. The Orthodox Jews, which are the most religiously observant segment of the Jewish population, did protest in solidarity. And the reverse is true as well. The irreligious are often connected by their hostility to religion. Thus, I suspect that secular Jews hostile to religion would have no problem with defaming Moses contrary to Rabbi Lapin’s prediction. Leftist Jews have no problem attacking the State of Israel either, supporting Palestinian rights, supporting Kerry, and many other acts that undermine what one might suppose is against their interest as Jews. In their choice of causes they act just like Christian Leftists.
Rabbi Lapin has a very good chapter in his book "America's Real War" devoted to dissecting how secular/liberal Jews play the "heads I win, tails you lose" game with the charge of anti-semitism.
This point speaks to what is wrong with the morality bereft Left in general. They have adopted an ends justify the means approach. The lack of protest Rabbi Lapin laments exemplifies the perversion of the so-called liberals, in general, Jew and Christian. They are prepared to put up the banner of tolerance, multiculturalism, and the need to respect diverse values if the cause is the correct one, the one they are championing. If they like the religion or personage, they will howl bloody murder if anyone offends. Islam has been granted such status and its own new word Islamophobia. (note Lapin’s point about the Alladin film)
Take free speech for instance, liberals have no trouble supporting “hate speech” laws or rules on campuses despite claiming to support multiculturalism and to respect diverse values. Wouldn’t those art exhibits be called hate speech? They are the arbiters of which cultures and values deserve that protection and which freedoms are okay to infringe. If it is the correct one they have no problem restricting the freedom of the wrong one to “protect” the correct one. Last I looked Freedom of Speech was more a requirement of the First Amendment than absence of any hint of religion in government which at best is derivative.
Rabbi Lapin does make the point that --
Now I do have one possible explanation for why one might consider it more important to protest Passion. It is this: In Europe, anti-Semitic slander frequently resulted in Catholic mobs killing Jews. Our hypersensitivity has a long and painful background of real tragedy.
Which is a point I made earlier.
In terms of Lapin’s points about the effect of the Passion on US viewers I agree with him. Jewish organizations blew that ridiculously out of proportion. Pogroms were not unleashed. In general his points in favor of the film are fair. But there is one other point to consider, the film was also shown worldwide in Muslim countries and in Europe where anti-Semitism has had a marked increase. Which brings me to one of my objections to the focus of Jewish organizations on a mere movie -- Don’t they have better things to do? Where are these organizations when actual anti-Semitic events in Europe are happening? Where are they on the virulent Arab media? And here I am talking about mainstream organizations not the Hollywood nut fringe.
Finally, Rabbi Boteach’s reaction may have been caused by sites and opinions like this: ugh!
As to your comment:
“Judging Boteach is implicit in evaluating his comments.”
If you mean by this that in order to evaluate Boteach’s comments you need to know his background, I disagree. I suspect you do too or you would not be conversing here with a bunch of anonymous folks like me.
(sorry for the length)
The difference between us is I don't back the anti-semite in this fight.
While that may well be the intended point, I tend to subscribe to the dictum "Adversus solem ne loquitor" [lit. Don't speak against the sun (don't waste your time arguing the obvious)], so I tend not to assume that's what others are doing.
In the present case, I think my assumptions are justified, because in my mind, to dismiss Donohue's emphasis on secular Jews as opposed to Jews in general is to utterly miss his point. The assault against "Passion" is advanced under the rubric of Jewish fear, but its motivation is strictly secularist.
A useful analogy would be that of abortion advocacy as it relates to adoption. While the two subjects are only tangentialy related, abortion advocates have a distinct tendency to favour policies that make adoption more difficult. "I couldn't give my baby away to somebody else" wraps the advocate in the cloak of motherhood, but the prime motivation is to justify the avoidance of motherhood.
... Or in the case of an organization like the ACLU it is not a Jewish organization representing any Jewish point of view though some of its members are Jewish...
It's not alluded to in the linked essay, but in "America's Real War" Lapin outlines the particulars on how a hellish intimidation campaign was raised against one Father Marks, a pro-life advocate, when he criticized the ACLU for their involvement in reproductive issues.
It was not Father Marks, but a reviewer in a prominent journal (forgive me for fuzzy details. they are presented in the book) that raised the charge of anti-semitism, predicated on the ACLU's Jewish leadership. The next thing Fr. Marks knew, his parrish was being picketed.
But there is one other point to consider, the film was also shown worldwide in Muslim countries and in Europe where anti-Semitism has had a marked increase.
True enough, but our interest in this discussion is strictly American ramifications. Be that as it may, the Rabbi notes "Quite frankly, if it is appropriate to blame today's American Christians for the sins of past Europeans, why isn't it okay to blame today's Jews for things that our ancestors may have done?" And I see no reason not to extend the Rabbi's presumed goodwill for American Christians to the modern European variety. European islam is the problem, and they don't need anything Christian to help them hate.
If you mean by this that in order to evaluate Boteach’s comments you need to know his background...
I do not. Boteach told me all I needed to know about his value as a commentator by the direction he took the discussion.
You keep implying that, but it's still an empty charge. I'm content to take my place with such vile anti-semites as Feder, Lapin, Praeger, and Medved.
You are, however, backing those who have coaxed you onto the chessboard, but convinced you the game is checkers.
Okay so we have agreed on the primacy of the words actually spoken.
Here is the first reference that Mr Donohue made to Jews which started Rabbi Boteach’s protest. I would better describe it as Mr Donohue, not Rabbi Boteach, who took the discussion in that direction.
Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.
If you read the interview Donohue insisted that the problem was secular Jews not secularity. Everyone else was willing to concede the problem was the secularity of Hollywood.
Rabbi Lapin does not say that the Jews who failed to protest sacrilegious art are Catholic or Christian haters, as Donohue says about Jews controlling Hollywood. Nor does Lapin say that Hollywood and other Jewish objections to “The Passion” are the result of hatred as does Donohue. Lapin simply questions their “moral legitimacy” in protesting anything having to do with religion. There is nothing in what Lapin says that suggests either Jewish “control” or a campaign directed against Catholics which is Donohue's point.
Donohue’s comments about Jews “controlling Hollywood” sounded like an oft used slur. A moment later Buchanan referenced “Neoconservatives,” which for him is usually synonymous with his mantra of supposed Jewish control of US foreign policy, namely by Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith. Taken together one might fairly say the implication is Jewish control on all fronts – left and right, a conventional anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
I forgot to make this point earlier to tie into my free speech point. Hollywood has said nothing about the death of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by an Islamist. Mr Van Gogh was killed because he made a film showing the atrocious treatment of women under Islam. He was killed specifically as a filmmaker, yet Hollywood is silent. Despicable. But should we infer they are anti-Dutch? Anti-gay (Mr Van Gogh was gay)? Anti-women? I think we can all agree that their silence is due to their strangely, morally bankrupt support of Islamists who I might add are no friends of Jews. As I said earlier there is only one religion sacred to secular Hollywood and that is the “other,” Islam.
Boteach, by the way, was not the only one who did not like Donohue’s comments on Jewish Hollywood, although she spoke softly:
MURTY: A couple of comments about—I‘d like to address Bill‘s comments just quickly about secular Jews.
Let‘s remember, secular Jews built up our film industry and founded most of our Hollywood movie studios and were very patriotic Americans for a long period of time. So I‘m a little—I feel some concern about the comments about secular Jews.
She also repeated Boteach’s citation of “Scorsese and Coppola and Lucas” signaling her belief that this is about secular, not Jewish, Hollywood. Of no particular relevance, I like her.
And I see no reason not to extend the Rabbi's presumed goodwill for American Christians to the modern European variety. European islam is the problem, and they don't need anything Christian to help them hate.
Well here I really do disagree. European Muslims are only one part of the problem. Complicity by governments, the press and the populace who do not object and in fact take part in marches where anti-Semitism is promoted makes the problem much larger than just Muslims. Considering the modern history of Europe, that combination of promotion and blind eye is unacceptable in the face of mounting physical attacks on Jews. The “modern” Europe you refer to is a mere 50 years removed from genocide. Rabbi Lapin’s comments singling out America as different implies that he sees Europe differently too.
The game is Life and I know whose side I am on, and whose side I am not on.
Okay so we have agreed on the primacy of the words actually spoken.
That's a rather novel conclusion to make of the previous statement, but it's yours to make. If you are determined to find witches, you will find witches.
Personally, I think you are choking on gnats. My contention is while you remain fixated on the word "Jew," with "secular" as a modifier for Donahue, and the reverse for for the talking heads, in keeping with not arguing the obvious, Donohue's comments make better sense understood in the same way one would understand a soldier saying "we really had trouble with Iraqi armor." Armor, in and of itself, is no particular problem. Having to fight soldiers IN armored units is. I believe it is overly punctilious to look for reasons to criticize someone for neglecting to distinguish between the soldiers and the armor that makes them a problem.
If the secularists weren't wrapping themselves in the mantel of Jewishness, they'd have no pretense of moral standing from which to punish their critics.
I think there's a whole lot less of a chance Donahue secretly wishes to set up a death camp, than I think there is of his critics secretly desiring to set up a gulag for Americans who won't bow the knee to liberalism.
Rabbi Lapin does not say that the Jews who failed to protest sacrilegious art are Catholic or Christian haters, as Donohue says about Jews controlling Hollywood.
This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Would you be happier if I brought you a quote where Rabbi Lapin calls them bigots? I made it clear from the beginning my primary source was "America's Real War," not the linked article. You are not going to make a case based on textual criticism of Lapin's essay. His opinion of secular Jews is laid out quite clearly in his book, and is the basis of my own opinion.
Well here I really do disagree. European Muslims are only one part of the problem. Complicity by governments, the press and the populace who do not object and in fact take part in marches where anti-Semitism is promoted makes the problem much larger than just Muslims. Considering the modern history of Europe, that combination of promotion and blind eye is unacceptable in the face of mounting physical attacks on Jews. The “modern” Europe you refer to is a mere 50 years removed from genocide. Rabbi Lapin’s comments singling out America as different implies that he sees Europe differently too.
Be that as it may, you could make short work of my opinion by citing some European Christian attacks against Jews. I don't fault Jews for worrying over Christian anti-semitism in Europe, I can fault American Christians for imputing it. Jews do have a growing problem in Europe, but whatever part of it can be called "Christian" is vanishingly small.
In fact, if you google the name "Avi Lipkin" you will learn of the efforts of travelling Jewish Israeli speaker whose entire ministry is predicated on the idea strengthening Biblical Christians is Israel's best hope till Messiah comes.
That's a rather novel conclusion to make of the previous statement, but it's yours to make. If you are determined to find witches, you will find witches.
What is a “novel conclusion?” You indicated that you judged Boteach on his words. I agreed and proceeded to judge Donohue on his words as well. Your statement that I’m “determined to find witches” belies my careful and considered analysis of words spoken.
On Avi Lipkin, please go back to my first post where I discuss Evangelical Christians and how they differ from Catholics. But as a general matter, what is your point? So you cite Jews saying xyz. So what? Because they are Jewish does not make them unerring, or as I said earlier monolithic. There are many Jewish viewpoints and many Jews with non-Jewish viewpoints. Ditto Catholics. Ditto Christians. Do you want me to start citing the lousy things Catholics have to say about Mr Donohue because I can. Would that be meaningful? Or is it best to judge him on what he said not what others say about him?
My impression here is that the conversation is over. You ended it. I addressed sources but you made me and my supposed witch hunt the topic. That is not a conversation I am interested in having.
I agree, but don't kid yourself. Your "analysis" has far more to do with what you think than what I wrote.
Gee, long-winded AND a liar -- what a lethal combination!
Since we're now celebrating the 2 year anniversary of the New York Times launching its war against Mel Gibson, I can't allow your lie against him to stand -- Mel stated in no uncertain terms that he believed the holocaust occurred, and anyone who gets the tape of his Diane Sawyer interview from ABC will know that you are a liar and a slanderer.
You seem to be missing my point and the point of many others, namely that much criticism of Jews has been coming from Jews. Rich and Waxman were the first ones to claim in story after story in the New York Times that Hollywood was ruled by secular Jews and planning to punish Mel for daring to make a faithful, reverent Christian film. But it's now somehow anti-semitic when a Christian quotes them?
You've been given name after name of Jewish commentators criticizing Jews in the film industry, especially for rushing to fund anti-Christian films but balking at Passion -- Rabbi Lapin, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Bert Prelutsky, Don Feder, even goofball Ben Stein, but when Christians quote them, it's anti-semitic? They get to lament that the ACLU is mostly staffed and funded by secular Jews trying to radically change American culture, but if Christians notice, it's anti-semitic? I've heard and read countless Jewish opinions lamenting that 75% of Jews suicidally voted democrat, but I guess if Christians say so, it's anti-semitic? This is shaping up to be a case of no one gets to talk about Jews but Jews.
No problem -- but I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor and cease and desist slandering Catholics. You love evangelicals and loathe Catholics, fine, but don't repeat as Gospel their twisted view of the Catholic Church and pronounce it to be history, don't repeat their slurs that Catholics don't believe the Bible when in truth, we accept more of the Bible than they even acknowledge exists!
You believe a vicious liar like Krauthammer implying that Vatican II was somehow an admission of Catholic guilt in the holocaust?! You accept exaggerations about the Inquisitions and Passion Plays, all the while ignoring the obvious facts of history that it wasn't until the Catholic Church was eclipsed in Europe by Darwinians and Marxists that Hitler and Stalin rose to power. If you believe that, no wonder you accept Krauthammer -- he criticizes Mel for having Satan among a crowd of Jews, all the while ignoring Satan tormenting Christ in the Garden, inciting the Roman guards to mercilessly scourge Christ, and menacing Mother Mary on the road to Calvary. Dr. Krauthammer even had the temerity to fault Mel for saying that he prays for Jews, something all Christians are required to do -- go ahead, ask your beloved evangelicals if they don't daily 'pray for the peace of Jerusalem'.
You want to believe the worst about Catholics, go ahead, accept revisionist lies. Ignore all the Catholics who died at the hands of Hitler and Stalin. Ignore all the Catholics who died freeing the world from Hitler and Stalin. Ignore Bill Donahue's decades of support for Jews and call him an anti-semite when he quotes Jews you'd also rather ignore. Hey, you can even ignore all the millions Bill O'Reilly has raised in support of Jewish causes and call him an anti-semite like the ADL. I'm not paranoid, and I certainly don't believe in conspiracy theories of either the Jewish or Catholic variety, but I certainly know that I'm not alone in saying that one of my New Year's resolutions this year will be ignoring the likes of you.
Nope, is and was a conservative. Oh, and stop reading the leftwing propaganda, that will lessen the confusion.
"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..."
Kennedy's father was relieved of his State Department post in England and sent home for his pro-Nazi views wasn't he?
Yep
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.